Proceedings Math Edu

A Implementation of curricula; issues of access and equity.
Forname Name EMAIL Number

Alexei Semenov alsemenov@mtu-net.ru c12
Mike Thomas moj.thomas@auckland.ac.nz c17
Zsolt Lavicza zl221@cam.ac.uk c33
Chantal Buteau cbuteau@brocku.ca c42
Sonia Ursini soniaul2002@yahoo.com.mx c64
Hartwig Meiner meissne@math.uni-muenster.de c68
Michal Yerushalmy michalyr@construct.haifa.ac.il c71
Mary Gray mgray@american.edu c73
Helene Forgasz Helen.Forgasz@education.monash.edu.au c82
KHO Tek Hong KHO_Tek_Hong@moe.gov.sg c90
Cyril Julie cjulie@uwc.ac.za
Colleen Vale colleen.vale@vu.edu.au c30
Ana Isabel Sacristan asacrist@cinvestav.mx c64
John Olive jolive@uga.edu c8
Distance Learning: Mathematical Learning Opportunities for Rural
Schools in the United States
Margaret Sloan & John Olive
University of Georgia, USA
mhsloan@alltel.net and jolive@uga.edu
Much has been written about technology in the mathematics classroom, in

the computer lab, and in students' homes. Such technology includes
calculators, SmartBoards, computers, Internet access, VCR or DVD
recorders or players, digital cameras, computer projection apparatus, and
other technological solutions to particular teaching and learning needs.
Many schools, especially those in remote, often impoverished locales,
cannot provide such a cornucopia of goods and services, but there is one
technological resource that can provide students in almost any location with
the very best learning opportunities available anywhere in the world. This
technology is known as Distance Learning, and even at its most basic level,
any school with Internet access can open new doors of opportunity for its
students. When access to interactive video systems can be achieved,
Distance Learning can enable those students to become acquainted with
world-class mathematicians and scientists.
All schools, including the rural schools which seek to educate almost
one third of the children in the United States (Beeson & Strange, 2003),
make decisions about the use of technology on a more or less continual
basis, and all schools have similar factors to consider the population they
serve, the resources at their disposal, and the technological expertise of their
staff. According to a recent NCES report, rural schools are leaders in U.S.
education in at least one area of computer based instruction: distance
learning (Setzer & Lewis, 2005). In many ways, schools in the rural United
States are similar to schools in developing countries that have limited fiscal
resources for education and may be remote geographically. The intent of this
paper is to provide information and insight into some of the ways that
distance learning can benefit mathematical learning opportunities in such
schools and how this technology might be procured and utilized.
In the NCES report, distance learning courses are defined as those
offered in a district with the teacher and the students in different locations.
Approximately 46% of rural districts in the United States have students
enrolled in distance education courses, and two-way interactive video, the
crme de la crme of distance learning, is the technology most often used as
Distance Learning: Mathematical Learning Opportunities for Rural Schools in the United States
the delivery method (Setzer & Lewis, 2005). With two-way interactive
television, or I-TV, distance learning is instructor-led, class-based, and
synchronous providing real time instruction and communication
(Yaunches, 2004).
As typically implemented, I-TV is the technology that most closely
resembles a traditional classroom, and in thousands of rural schools,
educators are discovering the instructional benefits and cost effectiveness of
this technology. According to a report about distance learning opportunities
for elementary and secondary students, of the 15,040 school districts in the
United States, 5480 (44% of secondary schools and 36% of all schools) had
students enrolled in distance learning classes. Administrators were so
pleased with the results that 72% of participating schools were planning to
expand their distance learning programs. Fifteen percent of students in
distance learning courses were taking mathematics. Nationwide, 14% of
students in distance learning classes were taking Advanced Placement or
college level courses, but in more than half (53%) of the rural schools
offering distance learning classes, students were taking such accelerated
offerings. Similarly, for 56% of the schools in areas with high poverty,
where distance learning was offered, students were taking advanced courses
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). This suggests that for
students in rural and economically stagnant areas, distance learning is vitally
important for gaining access to the highest levels of academic work.
Research comparing distance learning of mathematics to traditional
learning has been limited, usually at the college level, and often indicates
there is no significant difference in achievement; but most mathematics
educators in rural schools would quickly point out that for rural schools, the
question is often not a choice between traditional and distance instruction
but whether an advanced mathematics course can be offered at all.
A driving force behind rural schools' embrace of distance learning,
beyond the ability for small rural schools to provide an expanded
mathematics curriculum for their students and continuing professional
development for their teachers, is that distance learning is often an effective
response to the ever-looming threat of consolidation (Yaunches, 2004).
Nearly 54% of rural and small town secondary schools in the U.S. have
enrollments of 400 or fewer students (Hoffman, 2003), and state legislatures
often turn to consolidation of schools or entire districts in an attempt to cut
costs and provide better educational opportunities. Research has shown,
however, that small schools can be effective, with lower dropout rates and
higher percentages of students graduating (Hobbs, 2004); and, as it turns out,
attempts to lower costs through consolidation almost always fail (Rural
2
School and Community Trust, 2003). The preservation or demise of small

schools is a vitally important issue for many communities, and providing
distance learning opportunities for students, as opposed to pursuing
consolidation strategies, certainly seems to be a more effective solution to
the problems spawned by isolation, teacher shortages, and fiscal pressures.
Having limited numbers of students interested in taking an elective
mathematics course presents challenges for school administrators who have
to balance demands for classroom space, teachers, and other resources
and without a distance learning alternative, such requests often must be
denied. Distance learning programs can provide access to such coursework,
even for just one or two students. Students in need of remedial work, as well
as those ready for advanced mathematics courses, can benefit from these
offerings. At most schools, even those with limited technology, students can
be directed to computer resources on an as-needed basis, before, during, and
after school. Because many colleges and universities in the United States
offer distance learning courses, high schools with this technology can offer
dual enrollment for students who are ready for college-level mathematics but
have not graduated high school.
Some schools have found that distance learning can provide a virtual
schooling alternative across the curriculum. Alternative school programs are
commonplace throughout much of the United States, many of them relying
on computerized instruction of some sort; and the high school in Cairo,
Georgia, has a novel approach to the problem of students who are unable to
meet traditional requirements. These students spend the school day in a
computer lab at Cairo High School taking on-line courses offered by Griggs
University in Maryland; but this is not a remedial or tutorial program. As
soon as they have enough credits to complete graduation requirements, the
participating students receive a high school diploma from the state of
Maryland (Williams, 2005).
Web-based instruction generally refers to distance learning as well as
instructional programs that include on-line sites for access to data sets,
software applications, or other instructional materials. Unlike the fixed
content in conventional computer-based instruction (CBI), Web-based
instruction can be modified to meet specific needs, is accessible from almost
any location, and can be linked to related sources of information factors
that establish what has become known as "anytime, anywhere" learning.
Ultimately, successful integration of any technology, including web-
based instruction, into the mathematics curriculum is dependent on teachers
and administrators who embrace new technologies and are willing to
participate in professional development programs designed to help them take
3
advantage of the benefits and opportunities embedded in computer-based

learning (Huffaker, 2003). Much of the research about technology
integration assumes that once technological tools are in place, everyone will
enthusiastically support technology-based instructional methods; however,
this does not usually occur without a conscientious effort by school officials
to address a multitude of issues. Schools must explore issues dealing with
professional development, equitable access to appropriate hardware and
software, Internet access and controls, and out-of-class availability of
computers (Alexiou-Ray, Wilson, Wright, & Peirano, 2003).
Providing support to teachers may involve extensive and on-going
professional development. Many distance learning providers expect that a
teacher will be available to assist students with the course content as well as
the technology, and those teachers often need additional training often
through web-based professional development programs. The InterMathi
Project, a collaborative effort of The University of Georgia, CEISMC -
Georgia Institute of Technology, and regional technology centers in the state
of Georgia, funded in part by the US National Science Foundation, is one
functioning example of a web-based professional development resource for
middle school mathematics teachers. InterMath focuses on building
teachers' mathematical content knowledge through mathematical
investigations that are supported by technology. The Project includes a
workshop component as well as an ongoing, web-based, support community
that includes a lesson plan database and a discussion board.
Clearly, all of this technology costs money, a commodity often hard to
come by in rural areas. Initiatives such as the e-rate program, which is a
telecommunication, Internet access, and internal networking discount
program administered by the Federal Communications Commission, and
technology challenge grants from a wide range of sources can alleviate some
fiscal difficulties. Many school districts band together to develop distance
learning consortiums, establishing partnerships with other schools, higher
education partners, and/or other outside vendors to provide cost effective
options for distance learning by sharing teachers, maximizing the benefits of
the I-TV network investment, sharing costs of operations, combining classes
across multiple schools, providing access to professional groups, and
maximizing the use of technology by addressing objectives for athletic,
administrative, health, and other educational staff (Hobbs, 2004).
After receiving a grant in 1992, the North Carolina School of Science
and Mathematics (NCSSM) developed a distance learning program with the
goal of distance learning becoming a school outreach program. They began
with the delivery of three courses, AP American History, Precalculus, and
4
Science of the Mind, utilizing one-way video and two-way audio. In 1994,
NCSSM became a state-funded provider of educational programming to
teachers and students, utilizing the North Carolina Information Highway.
Now, with two-way video and audio, their system supports full interactivity
between school sites and teachers and among school sites with each other,
sharing resources and curriculum. Through distance education NCSSM can
provide rural and isolated areas of the state with courses, enrichment
programs, paired teaching collaborations, workshops, and graduate level
courses (The North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics, 2002).
In Florida, the Florida Virtual School (FLVS) was funded through a
$1.3 billion dollar initiative to ensure that the project did not threaten general
education funding. Now, while many other states struggle to maintain a
virtual-schooling option for their students, FLVS has a substantial revenue
stream, generating approximately $500,000 in profits during 2004 (Wood,
2005). The advance governmental support enabled FLVS to provide
educational opportunities not only for students in Florida but also for
students around the world as FLVS has joined the ranks of courseware
entrepreneurs, selling to other schools its curriculum and offering franchises
with hardware, software, curriculum, and professional development for
teachers (Wood, 2005).
Rural schools are not alone in their effort to take advantage of grants
as a means of financing technology to meet the special needs and challenges
facing rural educators. In a press release from Merrill Lynch in December
2004, it was announced that students in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Georgia
will benefit from a new $5 million grant from the U.S. Department of
Education's Office of Innovation and Improvement to fund the development
of a national model for increasing educational opportunities for students
attending small and rural schools.
Over the next five years, the Association of Education Services
Agencies (AESA) and Catapult Learning, LLC will establish a streamlined
contracting and purchasing system so that small and rural school districts
will have greater access to high quality supplemental educational services
(PRNewswire, 2004). These supplemental educational programs are an
integral part of many districts' school improvement plans, especially in
regards to the provisions of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). During the pilot
program, 2,300 Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Georgia students will receive live,
individualized, direct instruction delivered through Catapult Learning's
online tutoring system (PRNewswire, 2004).
Distance learning is not a fad, nor is it a panacea for all of the
shortcomings of the traditional mathematics classroom, but all evidence
5
indicates that its widespread adoption is likely to continue into the future,
with students accessing the technology at school, public libraries, and their
homes perhaps even via their cell phones. For their very survival, rural
schools have to provide this technology. Issues such as curriculum controls,
accreditation, course evaluations, teacher certification, accountability,
academic integrity, Internet filters, per-student funding, preservice teacher
training, and professional development need to be addressed as distance
learning becomes a more substantial part of students' educational experience.
There is no benefit to be derived from ignoring the fact that
technology is essential to today's education environment. In the United
States there are ways to fund it and ways to train staff to utilize it; but
schools, rural and otherwise, need to spend their money wisely, critically
examine research reports, and realistically assess the ways in which various
technologies can attend to the needs of the students in their schools. In an
upcoming research effort, the first author of this paper will be examining in
depth the mathematics program in a rural school in the southeastern United
States, and of particular interest will be the extent to which that school,
located in an area of extreme poverty, has been able to provide access to
Web-based instruction, including distance learning, to enhance learning
opportunities for its students.
References
Alexiou-Ray, J. A., Wilson, E., Wright, V., & Peirano, A. M. (2003).

Changing instructional practice: The impact of technology integration
on students, parents, and school personnel. Electronic Journal for the
Integration of Technology in Education, 2(2).
Beeson, E., & Strange, M. (2003). Why rural matters 2003: The continuing
need for every state to take action on rural education. Washington,
DC: Rural School and Community Trust.
Hobbs, V. (2004). The promise and the power of distance learning in rural
education (Policy brief). Arlington, VA: The Rural School and
Community Trust.
6
Hoffman, L. (2003). Overview of public elementary and secondary schools

and districts: 2001 - 2002. Washington: National Center for
Education Statistics.
Huffaker, D. (2003). Reconnecting the classroom: E-learning pedagogy in
US public high schools. Australian Journal of Educational
Technology, 19(3), 356370.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Distance Education
Courses for Public Elementary and Secondary School Students: 2002.
Washington, DC.
PRNewswire. (2004). AESA, Catapult Learning awarded $5 million U.S.
Department Education Grant to Develop Tutoring Model for
Rural/Small Schools. Merrill Lynch News Stories.
Rural School and Community Trust. (2003). The fiscal impacts of school
consolidation: Research-based conclusions. Washington: Rural
School and Community Trust.
Setzer, J. C., & Lewis, L. (2005). Distance education courses for public
elementary and secondary school students: 2002 - 2003. Washington:
National Center for Education Statistics.
The North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics. (2002). How we
started and why we do it. Retrieved 1/8/2006. from
http://www.dlt.ncssm.edu/distance_learning/background.htm.
Williams, T. (2005). On-line program boosting education. Thomasville
Times-Enterprise.
Wood, C. (2005). Highschool.com [Electronic Version]. Edutopia. Retrieved
11/2/05 from
http://www.edutopia.org/magazine/ed1article.php?id=Art_1270&issu
e=apr_05.
7
Yaunches. (2004). Distance learning, from theory to powerful reality

[Electronic Version]. Rural Roots, 5. Retrieved 10/24/05 from
http://www.ruraledu.org/roots/rr504a.htm.
i
InterMath web page: http://www.intermath-uga.gatech.edu/homepg.htm
Project Director: Dr. James W. Wilson, Department of Mathematics and Science
Education, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Email: jwilson@uga.edu
8
Using visual microworlds in teaching mathematics of computation in primary
and secondary schools
Alexei Semenov
Moscow
alsemenov@mtu-net.ru
The most rapidly growing branch of mathematics is mathematics of computation.

Today it deals with modern information processing as well as with human
reasoning and formal acting. Comparatively slow it appears in secondary school
curricula. It is not evident that computers can effectively support learning in this
field, but it happened that many key topics of it have been visualised (structural
programming, parallel processing, interpretation of logical formulas, etc). The
visualisation is of two kinds: one-to-one, where all objects and processes of
mathematical reality are represented on a computer screen, with the only
limitations being the objects size and process time, and specialized, where
specific objects and processes are represented, but this is enough to form general
skills of students applicable for all problems of the topic. The major challenge here
can be summarized in one word: integration.
Changes in mathematics and changes in civilisation

Over the last century (starting in 1870s and even before) the content and methods
of mathematics changed dramatically. One of the most important areas of these
changes was connected with mathematical investigations of human thinking and
acting. The first summit of the events was achieved in 1930-s in Gdels
completeness and incompleteness theorems and Churchs thesis. Naturally, the
primary results were on mathematical thinking (formal mathematical reasoning)
and mathematical acting (execution of formal mathematical algorithms). They
constituted, respectively interconnected branches of mathematical logic and theory
of algorithms.
In the following 30 years many results of mathematical logic and theory of

algorithms were implemented in hardware and software of the rapidly developing
information industry. In 1930s it was hard to predict development of integration
circuits, but the coincidence in time of ICT and the preceding mathematical
events are astonishing. The precedence of mathematics appeared further. For
example, the major concepts of structural programming (constructions, invariants,
inductive proofs) were fully developed and used for rigorous proof of correctness
of a compiler by Andrei Markov (Jr.) in the framework of his theory of algorithms
based on string processing.
In the next years on the one hand the field of mathematics of computation based on
mentioned mathematical logic and theory of algorithms became perhaps the most
massive and rapid development. On the other hand computers became a powerful
tool of visualisation and became personal.
We can say that machines of material and energy processing were implementations
of continuous mathematics, as well as many processes in nature. Computers are
today implementations of discrete mathematics, as well as processes of human
thinking and formal behaviour. We believe that these dramatic changes in
mathematics and in the world should be resembled in education. As was indicated
by many people and considered in details by Don Knuth, rigorous thinking on
algorithms is mathematical and concerns abstract mathematical objects and
methods of reasoning constitute a special type of mathematical thinking the
algorithmic one.
There should be a shift from training how to execute routine algorithms that are
much better executed by machines now to learning, on the one hand how to use
these machines, and on the other hand, the mathematical basement for these
machines construction, operation and using.
The content of mathematics of computation on the secondary level

We believe that the major achievements of mathematics of computation constitute
today an important part of the general culture. As an example we quote here the
Russian standards for general school education (1-11) approved in 2004 with
minor changes for standards that are in the process of development now.
General notions
Systems constituted by acting elements, states of elements, signals. Control, feedback,
stability. Information, information objects of different types (symbols, numbers, sounds,
images). Universality of discrete (digital, in particular, binary) presentation of
information, accuracy of presentation. Quantity of information. Compression of
information.
Process of information transmission, information transmitter and receiver, coding and
decoding, distortion of information in the process of transmission, transmission speed.
Storing, transmitting, processing of information in social, biological, and technical
systems. Information perception, memorising, processing and transmitting by living
organisms and humans. Value of information.
Language as medium of presentation for information: natural and artificial languages,
semantics. Formalisation of description and simulation of real objects and processes.
Formalisation of problem. Computer simulation.
Mathematical concepts and their applications

Transforming of information by formal rules. Algorithms. Different ways to describe
algorithms, flow-charts. Logical values, operations and expressions. Constructing
algorithms using names, branching, cycles. Top-down analysis of a problem, using sub-
algorithms. Objects of algorithmic processes: strings of symbols, binary numbers, lists,
trees, graphs. Algorithms (the following list is flexible): Euclids, conversion from binary
to digital and vice versa, examples of sorting, search (for a winning strategy in the tree of
a game).
Computable functions, formalization of the notion of computable function, its
completeness. Complexity of computation. Complexity of information object. Non-
existence of algorithms. The problem of exhaustive search (P-NP-problem).
The quoted approach was a cornerstone in building up Russian curriculum on
computer science and technology in the mid-1980s. The mathematics of
computation was originally presented there as a non-computer activity. So, the
course was introduced in all schools of the Soviet Union and was criticised for
teaching to ride a bicycle without a bicycle. That was evidently correct in the
aspect of computer technology but was not so true in the aspect of development of
algorithmic thinking. A little bit later a set of microworlds (see Visualisation
below) was developed for 8-bit, 32K or 64K memory computers.
Can computers help?

The content given previously can be changed in different traditions cultural and
technological surroundings. At the same time, the core essence of this content is
invariant and associated with the concepts of discrete objects and discrete
processes.
The very natural idea of computer application in learning and teaching the field of
mathematics is that computers can represent any discrete object and discrete
process. So, if a specific process deals, for example with numbers, the numbers can
be stored and transformed by a computer. So, we can compare the result of
implementation of our algorithm in the computer with our intention and verify our
design. But the most important reason for using computers in learning mathematics
of computation is visualisation.
Visualisation
Visualisation is considered as one of the most powerful processes in mathematical
discovery and mathematical education. There is a long discussion on different
styles of mathematical thinking, but in any style there is a space for visual
presentation of objects and processes.
So, the background idea of visualisation in learning mathematics of computation is

to find such specific environments, or micro-worlds, rich enough to present
important features of algorithmic processes and algorithmic constructions.
The Turtle
One of the first and the most famous microworlds is the microworld of Turtle. The
Turtle lives on a plane a finite part of an infinite plane, or the same assembled as
a torus, or a potentially infinite plane. The Turtle can act move forward to a
given distance and turn on a given angle. This environment today is extended to
different directions and has different applications in primary and secondary
education:
A creative environment for childrens self-expression and development
through making texts, pictures, and animations;
An environment for learning concepts of mathematics such as angle,
polygon, approximation of a circle by a polygon, probability, etc.
An environment, where a child can control the Turtle (primarily in its moves
in the plane on the computer screen). The control can be direct and
immediate: command action or, on the later stages, programming it.
The programming is done in Logo language. The language was originally
developed by mathematicians and AI researchers from a military oriented
company, BBN, and Seymour Papert, who joined them. Seymours inspiration
made the Logo community the strongest one in the field of advanced approaches of
using computers in schools. Logo became associated with the Piagetian
constructivist and Papert constructionist philosophy of education.
Turtle microworlds as well as programmed Drawer were used in Russian schools

among other microworlds (the Robot, discussed later was the most important one).
Over the last decade a version of Logo (called Icon Logo, or LogoFirst) was
developed in Russia. The main feature of it is that programming starts there
without and before textual literacy. Programming itself (not execution of programs
only) became visual: the primitives of the language are iconic.
Through visualisation Logo helps students to understand better such important

essentials of algorithmic thinking as iteration, recursion, top-down analysis.
The robot and structural programming

The natural behaviour of the Turtle does not assume conditional branching. Of
course, we can add to it some additional features like seeing a colour of plane
underneath. But there is something more natural and more intriguing that involves
conditionals. This is the microworld of Robot in the maze.
It needs some additional investigation to find out all origins of this creature. Some
of these are Slovakia, formerly part of Czechoslovakia the native land of robots
fantastic creations of great Czech writer of the XX century Karel Capek
(pronounced Cha:pek), Cornell University where Karel the Robot was used to
teach students structural programming starting from the beginning of 80s, and
Moscow state university, where the same happened approximately at the same
time, and then was used in mid-80s to teach algorithmic thinking to 2.5 million
Soviet high-school students.
Let us go to the essence. A maze is a rectangle surrounded by walls. It can also

contain walls inside. The only limitation is: all walls are vertical or horizontal
segments with integer ends. The Robot is a creature (or a machine) with four
options of moving: by one unit up, down, right, left, and four senses: to see a wall
immediately up, down, right, left. (This definition can be changed, for example we
can expect the robot to turn to four directions and to see a wall in front of it.) A
problem is usually formulated as: program the Robot to move from one position
to another. For example, the first position can be unknown a priory, and the
second one can be upper-left corner. Even more important is that the maze can be
also un-known beforehand, but some restriction on the walls position can be
given, for example: there arbitrary number of wall segments, but all should go in
the vertical direction. These unknown parameters represent the major feature of
algorithms and algorithmic thinking: to invent a general instruction of behaviour
that is valid for a possible infinite number of situations.
In the practical school context it is important that the programming, on the one
hand is presented as text construction, like in Logo and adult computer
languages. On the other hand, the construction is done by using building blocks
in a structural way, not letter by letter. The result is also presented in a structured,
visualised way. In the process of execution the executed command can be indicated
on the screen.
Investigating different kinds of restrictions we can obtain a big variety of problems

constituting a natural space of tasks of increasing difficulty up to the problems of
proving impossibility (non-existing of algorithms). In this case the non-existence is
not caused by the general limits of computability but by specific limitations of the
computational model. One more dimension of variety here is the different
primitives of programming, for example, numeric variables can be permitted or
not.
Lacking the creative power of Logo, as an instrument of doing something relevant

for the world outside mathematical education, the described microworld is a very
important environment to learn the basic methodology of structural programming.
The builder and parallel programming

One more visual environment used in Russia for teaching algorithmic thinking is a
microworld of building construction. The process of construction (to be
programmed by a student) consists of putting together building blocks, and can
done in parallel by different brigades. A problem is an assignment to build a
construction in the shortest time with a given number of brigades.
This microworld is interesting enough and provides some space for variety of
problems for secondary school. Its major limitation is connected with the fact that
one program is being constructed for one building only, it is not assumed to work
in multiple situations.
An IT extension: Controlling real moving objects

The natural extension of the visualisation idea can be called materialisation. This
means controlling and programming, not events inside a computer, not visible on a
computer screen only, but happening in physical reality. For example, a real
electro-mechanical turtle is a popular device in British primary and secondary
schools.
An additional dimension comes with an opportunity of assembling the moving
models from blocks of a construction set. Such construction sets are produced by
LEGO and other companies.
Turing Machine
In the mathematics of computation traditionally more simple devices than abstract
computers are considered such as Turing machines. We think that considering
them could be helpful in the development of algorithmic thinking in connection
with hardware software relations, understanding more about complexity, specific
syntactic algorithms, etc. At the same time, Turing machines in their standard
presentation are very far from being intuitive. A group in Stanford University
developed a visualization of the machines. As they write in [1]:
In Turings World, a collection of graphical tools lets you design Turing machines
by directly drawing their state diagrams. When you run a Turing machine in
Turings World, the operation of the machine is displayed graphically, both on the
tape and in the state diagram window. On the tape, the read/write head moves,
making the changes required by the machine youve designed. In the state diagram,
the nodes and arcs highlight to show the changing state of the computation.
Turings World also allows students to display the text-based 4-tuple description
of their machines, though we have found that they rarely do.
The Turing machine looks out of the scope of the secondary education. At the
same time finite automata presented in a visual way on computer screen can
naturally fit into mathematics of computation for secondary and even primary
school. (There were several attempts to do this even without computer.) So, first
finite automata can be presented similarly to Turing machines, second in the case
of finite automata are in a course, it is easier for Turing machines to appear.
The Life Game

Several attempts were made to implement the microworld of the Life Game of
Conway. It looks like this microworld can be used not only in mathematics of
computation study, but also as an environment for students investigation of a
natural science phenomena (in this case phenomena of artificial nature). These
phenomena resemble different phenomena of biology and can be productively
investigated even on the primary school level. As in other cases it is helpful to start
with pen and paper exercises and then pass to the computer environment.
Pre-computer experiences in algorithmic thinking

Algorithmic thinking and other elements of basic mathematics of computation can
be developed a non-ICT context. Formally it is outside the subject of the study but
we believe that some of the non-computer activities should be integrated into the
learning process, for example:
Students can count seeds in a jar and learn divide-and-conquer principles
Students can sort LEGO bricks and design sorting algorithms to be
implemented on computer
Students can play games with complete information, construct winning
strategies, possibly using tree of the game, etc.
Static microworlds of logic and mathematics of computation
Some problems concerning objects of mathematics of computation can be pretty
sophisticated and importantly not being immediately associated with any process.
For example, it can be a problem of finding the truth value of a formula, or
constructing an object satisfying a given condition, etc. The objects can be
visualised on the computer screen.
Tarskis (Micro)World was designed by the mentioned team from Stanford

University. In this microworld as in some others (Robot etc.) a virtual
interpretation of some general concepts is given. Here the general notions of
relation is interpreted via a handful of (quasi) spatial relations: to be a cube, to be
a pyramid, to be small solid (or block), A is back of solid B, etc. It looks
very limited, but the microworld happens to be rich enough to develop in its visual
context the major skills and heuristics, associated with first-order logics.
Visualisation here gives a model for a formula and used also in formula interactive
analysis.
Let us mention also another product of Patric Suppes group at Stanford it is

Hyperproof. Being beyond secondary level it gives an interesting example of
visualising syntactical structures and inferences.
A different example is given by the Informatica microworld, used in teaching

basics of discrete mathematics including mathematics of computation in thousands
of Russian schools for last decades. In this case the microworld contains and
graphically presents on a computer screen such objects as strings, bags, trees and
tables (of beads, symbols, digits, numbers etc.) as well as provides graphical tools
to construct objects and to operate with them: add bags, or unite them (maximum
operation), represent bag as a table, multiply to bags (as algebraic expression),
concatenate strings, etc. This microworld is supported (or, in many cases,
substituted) by pen-and-paper microworld of graphical objects. In this case it is
interesting that, as it happens in algebra with graphics or in dynamic geometry, the
objects of a childs work can be always presented on the screen with the size of
them being the only limitation. Next to this there are Tabletop and, especially,
Tabletop Jr. of TERC instrument for data and operations on data visualising.
Games
It would be interesting to construct microworlds for specific (possibly, to be
invented) games (of two persons with perfect information), where, on the one hand
dynamic strategy thinking is developing, and on the other hand, understanding of
quantifiers as opponents moves appears. A known example is the Nim game. Here
is one more brilliant case of such a game from the field of recreational
mathematics:
Let us have a round table and two players with infinite stock of congruent
coins. They put coins in alternative moves, one by one, non-overlapping.
The player that has made the last move wins.
The known winning strategy (to be given in the conference talk) proof needs
discussion of termination of computational processes, invariants, and inductive
reasoning as well as general mathematical concepts of symmetry.
In this field of recreational mathematics and Olympiads there are more problems in
the field (not games only) that can be visualised and studied with computer.
Not covered yet

Naturally, not all topics of mathematics of computation are visualised or can be
visualised at our level of understanding today. At the same time, we remember,
that, for example, Euclids algorithm was developed as a geometric one. So,
experience in visualisation of actions in dynamic geometries (Geometers
Sketchpad, etc.) can be used here.
Conclusions
As we can see, there are several virtual environments visualizing objects and
processes of mathematics of computation including logic and algorithms on the
potentially secondary and, even primary, level. Some of these environments
represent some part of mathematical reality in a full form, others are of generic
nature, where you see and work with some specialization of general notions (e.g.
structural programming) but can develop general skills, needed in a general
context.
The important interconnected tasks for the future work are:

To redesign primitives and interfaces of the microworlds
To implement the microworlds in the modern operating systems coding,
possibly, as open source Java, or Flash, etc. code, to cover mobile devices as
well
To provide some kind of unification over the microworld (in the interface
details, terminology, etc.)
To design specific topics and whole mathematics of computation part of the
modern mathematical curriculum
To integrate math of computation into mathematical curricula and into
general education
To reconsider the goals and content of mathematical education on the basis
of ICT technology, mathematics of computation and modern society needs.
References
[1] Jon Barwise, John Etchemendy, Computers, visualization, and the nature of
reasoning, available through http://www-csli.stanford.edu/hp/Logic-
software.html
Teachers using computers in mathematics: A longitudinal study
Michael O. J. Thomas
The University of Auckland
moj.thomas@auckland.ac.nz
The computer has been in mathematics classrooms for over 20 years now, but with widely varying
implementation in mathematics teaching and learning. This paper describes a ten-year
longitudinal research study that has investigated the changing nature of how secondary school
teachers use computers in their mathematics classroom, and their perception of constraints or
obstacles to improving, or extending, such use. The results show that while there are now many
more computers available in schools, access remains a key obstacle to their increased use as
mathematical learning tools. There is also a change in the kinds of software used, away from
content-specific programs and towards generic software, especially the spreadsheet. Teacher
attitude remains a key factor in progress.
Introduction
While many mathematics educators, including the author have been positive about
the possible role of computers in the learning of mathematics (see e.g., Thomas &
Holton, 2003), there have been doubts raised about a) whether computers have any
real value in learning (Cuban, 2001) and b) whether current teacher use is
qualitatively and quantitatively sufficient to promote any benefits that might exist.
Around 10 years ago Askew and Wiliam (1995) reported on a review of research in
mathematics education in the 5-16 year old age range, and found that Although
computers have been in use in mathematics education in this country [UK] for well
over twenty-five years, the pattern of usage is still very varied and very sparse. (p.
34). A UK Department of Education report (DFE, 1995) also noted a low level of
usage of computers in mathematics, with an average of 15.6 minutes of lesson time
per week spent using the computer, and in the United States the position was very
similar (Ely, 1993). While some might hope that this position has changed in more
recent years, a survey by Ruthven and Hennessey (2002) on school computer use
concluded that "Typically then, computer use remains low, and its growth slow." (p.
48).
There are a number of possible reasons for a low level of computer use in
mathematics teaching and learning, including teacher inability to focus on the
mathematics and its implications rather than the computer and many teachers not
believing that the computer has real value in student learning. Certainly, Veen
(1993) has argued that teacher factors outweigh school factors in the promotion of
computer use. More recently Becker (2000a) reported on a national US survey of
over 4000 teachers and concluded that in a certain sense Cuban is correct
computers have not transformed the teaching practices of a majority of teachers. (p.
29). However, he noted that for certain teachers, namely those with a more student-
centred philosophy, who had sufficient resources in their classroom (5 or more
computers), and who had a reasonable background experience of using computers, a
majority of them made active and regular use of computers in teaching. Becker
(2000b) has added a description of some characteristics of such an exemplary
computer-using teacher, but concludes that extending these to other teachers would
be expensive. This paper reports on a ten-year longitudinal study describing the
changing pattern of computer use in the mathematics classroom in New Zealand.
Both the level and kinds of use were recorded, together with some of the obstacles
teachers perceive to increased use.
Method
Genuine longitudinal studies, where at least two sets of data are acquired from the
same population over an extended time span, are relatively rare in mathematics
education research. This longitudinal study, which has as its population all secondary
mathematics teachers in New Zealand, began in 1995, when a postal questionnaire
on computer use was sent to every secondary school in New Zealand. Replies were
received from 90 of the 336 schools (26.8%), a reasonable response rate for a postal
survey. Apart from information about the mathematics department in the school we
received information from a total of 339 teachers in these 90 schools.
Some of the results of this survey were published at the time (Thomas, 1996). This
original survey was followed by a second in 2005 in order to gain longitudinal data
on how the situation might have changed over this period. In the years since 1995
teaching has become an even more stressful profession in many ways, particularly in
terms of demands on time. Hence, teachers are more reluctant than ever to spend
their valuable time filling in forms or research questionnaires. However, we had
learned some lessons from 1995 and this time stamped, addressed envelopes were
enclosed for all the schools and it was followed up several weeks later with a faxed
copy. Using this approach we achieved a response from 193 of the 336 secondary
schools in the country, an excellent 57.4% response. Completed questionnaires were
received from a total of 465 teachers in these 193 schools, as well as the school
information. In both years we are confident, due to the sample size, that the
responses form a representative sample of the population of secondary school
mathematics teachers, especially since we received a good proportion of responses
from non-computer users (over 30% in each case). Of the respondents, in 1995
51.5% were male and 48.5% female, with a mean age of 41.5 years, whilst in 2005,
52.6% were male and 47.4% female, with a mean age of 44.8 years; the teachers are
getting slightly older. While the questionnaires sent out in the two years were not
identical, for example questions on the use of the internet were added in 2005, they
had a considerable number of questions in common. On both occasions they used
both closed and open questions to provide valuable data on issues such as: the
number of computers in each school; the level of access to the computers; available
software; the pattern of use in mathematics teaching; and teachers' perceived
obstacles to computer use. This data enables us to come to some conclusions about
the changing nature of computer use in the learning of mathematics in New Zealand
secondary schools.
Q1 Do you ever use computers in your mathematics lessons? Yes 1
If you answered 'No' please go straight to Q14 No 2
Q2 How often do you use computers in your mathematics lessons? At least once a week 1
At least once a month 2
At least once a term 3
At least once a year 4
Never 5
Q5 Where are the computers you use usually situated? In the computer room 1
In the mathematics room 2
Q6 If the computers are in the mathematics room, how many do you One 1
usually have? Two 2
Three 3
Four 4
Other_______________ 5
Q10 Please rank these areas of mathematics in the order in which you Graphical Work ___
most often use the computer in your mathematics lessons i.e. 1 for Algebra ___
most often, 2 for next etc. Leave blank any you do not use the Trigonometry ___
computer for. Geometry ___
Statistics ___
Calculus ___
Other_______________ ___
Q13 Would you like to use computers more often in your mathematics Yes 1
lessons? No 2
Q14 If you answered yes to question 13, what do you see as obstacles to Lack of confidence ___
your use of them? Please rank in order any of these that apply (ie 1 Lack of training ___
for biggest obstacle, 2 for the next, etc.). Computer availability ___
Availability of software ___
School policy ___
Other________________________________________ Other_______________ ___
Q22 Please give the main advantage or benefit you have found, or feel to be true, of using technology in mathematics
lessons.________________________________________________________________________
Figure 1: Sample questions from the 2005 survey (some formatting changed).
Results
In 1995 67.2% of the teachers said that they used computers in their teaching, and
this remained steady at 68.4% in 2005. Looking at how often the teachers are using
the computer in teaching, in 1995 5.9% said they used them at least once a week, but
in 2005 this had risen to 13.3%. In 1995 the schools reported a mean of 40.0
computers per school, with 1.7 computers in the mathematics department. By 2005
there had been a jump in these numbers, with a mean of 74.4 computers per school
(excluding an outlier school with 1800 laptops), 21.9 of which are laptops, and
26.9% of the schools now have over 100 computers. Mathematics departments have
6.5 computers on average (4.2 laptops). One change has been the increase in the
number of ICT rooms, up from 71% of schools in 1995 to 96%, with a mean of 2.46
per school, up from 1.79 in 1995. However, while in 1995 89.1% of mathematics
teachers usually used computers in labs this dropped to 59.1% in 2005, with 10.7%
using them mostly in their classroom. The question arises though as to whether these
increased numbers of computers have changed the pattern of use in the teaching of
mathematics.
Computer use in mathematics teaching
The mathematics curriculum in New Zealand schools is divided up into Number,
Statistics, Geometry, Algebra and Measurement strands, along with a Processes
strand. Number and Measurement are principally primary and intermediate school
activities (secondary school usually starts at age 13 years) so those using the
computer were asked in which of the remaining curriculum areas (along with specific
topics of graphs, trigonometry and calculus) they used them (see Table 1).
Area of Use % of 1995 teachers (n=229) % of 2005 teachers (n=318)
Some Use Most Often Used Some Use Most Often Used
Geometry 34.1 4.8 28.2 3.9
Statistics 75.1 38.0 85.4 59.5
Graphical work 74.2 35.4 75.5 28.0
Algebra 32.3 4.8 33.4 3.5
Trigonometry 22.7 3.1 22.5 2.3
Calculus 24.0 3.9 22.5 2.6
Table 1: Curriculum areas where secondary teachers are using computers.
These figures show a significant increase in the use of computers for the learning of
statistics, both as first choice curriculum area (2=24.5, p<0.001), and for some use
(2=9.47, p<0.01). This not surprising since there is a strong emphasis on Statistics
in New Zealand schools, and it lends itself readily to an approach where the
computer can be used to perform routine calculations, as well as graphical and
investigational work. It is rather surprising in view of the excellent packages Cabri
Gomtre and Geometers SketchPad, that there has been a fall (although not a
significant one; 2=2.07) in the use of geometry packages. Cost may well be a factor
in this. Of the 193 schools in the 2005 survey only 20 mathematics departments had
a technology budget. The amount of money available ranged from NZ$200 to
$NZ15000, with a mean of NZ$2762.50 (NZ$1US$0.68), and one head of
department commented that Annual [software] fees also take up a lot of the
allocated budgets .
To gain some idea of the variety of uses that computers are being put to in schools
each survey asked the teachers to rank in order of regularity of use the types of
software they employed in teaching mathematics (see Table 2). It appears that there
has been a significant change in the kinds of software used in mathematics
classrooms over the period, away from specific content-oriented graphical (2=5.59,
p<0.05), mathematical (2=38.7, p<0.001), and statistical packages (2=12.3,
p<0.001), and towards generic software, especially the spreadsheet (2=28.0,
p<0.001), which may handle statistical work well enough for secondary schools.
Area of Use % of 1995 teachers (n=229) % of 2005 teachers (n=318)
Spreadsheet 67.2 31.9 86.2 62.6
Mathematical Programs 61.1 25.8 34.3 5.0
Graph Drawing Package 61.1 22.3 50.9 17.7
Statistics Package 44.1 11.8 29.6 5.0
Internet --- --- 46.1 6.6
Table 2: Types of software used with computers.
The trend away from specific graphical packages is a little surprising since there are
now some excellent programs, such as Autograph, available. Possibly the graphic
calculator has made inroads into the use of the computer for graphing functions.
Questions on the use of the internet were new in 2005, and 46.1% of the teachers
reported some use of it to teach mathematics. 61.1% of the teachers have access in
their classroom (and 68.4% in a staff room). For the students, only 26.4% have
classroom access, although 95.6% of schools have ICT rooms connected for them.
The question of how teachers organise their lessons around computer use arises.
Since 1995 a number of student-centred constructivist perspectives on teaching very
have been widely encouraged in mathematics education circles (e.g., von
Glasersfeld, 1991; Ernest, 1997). Has this influenced how computers are used, as one
might predict?
Method % of 1995 teachers (n=229) % of 2005 teachers (n=318)
Skill Development 67.7 37.6 58.5 24.5
Free Use 34.9 3.1 18.9 2.8
Investigations/PS 68.6 38.4 58.8 27.4
Demonstrations 40.6 10.9 59.6 29.7
Programming 8.7 1.3 6.9 1.6
Table 3: Teaching methods used with computers.
We can get some idea of what has happened in the classroom by looking at Table 3,
which describes the methods that teachers employ when using the computer. The
constructivist approach broadly encourages student-centred investigation and
problem solving, rather than teacher-led instruction and enforcing of skills; so one
might expect teachers to use the computer to do one or the other, but not both.
However, in both 1995 and 2005 it appeared that a substantial proportion of teachers
used both methods and did not see themselves on one side of a dichotomous
ideological fence. This was shown by around 60% reporting computer use for skill
development and demonstrations, as well as investigations. There was, however, a
significant decline in the proportion of teachers using the computer for skill
development (2=4.79, p<0.05), and in those allowing free use of the computer
(2=18.0, p<0.001). However, the use of demonstrations significantly increased
(2=19.5, p<0.001), and so the data implies that while directed use and
demonstration is more common in 2005, it is not as often skill-directed. Again this is
not entirely what one might expect from a constructivist perspective. We note that
the percentage of teachers who value programming sufficiently to spend some time
on it has remained reasonably constant, if somewhat low. It may be that those who
are convinced that programming may encourage the formation of mathematical
thinking have strong convictions. More recent ideas related to the value of
programming suggest that allowing students to interact with games where they are in
control, programming attributes and functions in microworld-like games software
(Noss & Hoyles, 2000) may be beneficial for learning.
Obstacles to computer use
In the original 1995 survey 93.5% of the teachers responded that they would like to
use computers more in their mathematics teaching, however, in the latest survey
those agreeing with this sentiment had dropped to 75.1%. While this is a highly
significant decrease (2=47.0, p<0.001), one must take into account the increased
rate of use of computers, and hence some teachers may feel that they have reached
their optimum usage level. In any case there is still a sizeable proportion of the
teachers who would like to use them more, and so we are led to ask 'what factors do
they perceive as preventing them from making greater use, or using them at all?' The
results from the two surveys on this aspect are shown in Table 4.
Obstacle % of 1995 teachers (n=339) % of 2005 teachers (n=452)
First Mentioned Mentioned First Mentioned Mentioned
Available Software 17.4 52.5 10.8 39.4
Available Computers 43.7 67.8 42.7 58.0
Lack of Training 17.4 45.4 7.5 31.9
Lack of Confidence 12.7 34.8 5.3 22.4
Government Policy 4.1 12.4 --- ---
School Policy 0.6 8.0 0.4 9.3
Table 4: Obstacles teachers mention as preventing computer use in teaching.
In 1995 there were two areas where the teachers wanted to see improvement in order
to reach their goal of using computers more. They were the provision of resources, in
terms of available hardware and software and the increasing of their confidence
through satisfactory training. In 2005 we see that the lack of training has been better
addressed, with significantly fewer teachers mentioning it (2=15.2, p<0.001),
although only 39.6% of the teachers had recently been on any kind of professional
development covering use of technology to teach mathematics. Clearly there is still a
need for training, since when department heads were asked how many of their
mathematics teachers would not feel confident using technology in their teaching,
the mean response was 3.1, compared with a total of 7.2 full time and 3.1 part time
mathematics teachers. In addition, significantly fewer feel that they lack confidence
in computer use (2=15.0, p<0.001), possibly due to greater penetration of computers
in homes over the period. Further, the need for software may have been covered by
the greater use of the spreadsheet, which is now provided with virtually all
computers. However, the problem of the availability of computers remains the major
issue. Although the number of computers in schools is increasing, since they are
primarily located in large ICT rooms access to them by mathematics teachers is still
the primary problem preventing greater use. The 2005 survey asked teachers if they
seldom used the computer room what was the reason, and 38.7% said that it was
because of the difficulty with booking the room, and a few said that it was too
difficult to organize. There were very few other reasons of note given. Typical
teacher comment were Access to computers at required time (of year and within
school timetable blocks) was difficult, there is a problem getting into overused
computer suites and Due to the increased demand for IT classes it is very difficult
to book a computer room for a class of 20-30 students. In addition, in 1995 13% of
teachers mentioned some other obstacle, and in 2005 the figure was 18.4%. These
included the time and effort needed by both students and teachers in order to become
familiar with the technology. It appears that some teachers are concerned that this
instrumentation phase would impact on time available for learning mathematics.
Conclusion
What does this research tell us about the changing face of computer use mathematics
teaching in New Zealand secondary schools? The percentage of secondary
mathematics teachers never using them has remained constant, at around 30%. While
there are many more computers in the schools and an increased frequency of use,
access to them is still the major obstacle to use in mathematics. They are usually in
ICT rooms, and 89.6% of mathematics departments do not have their own
technology budget. The primary uses of the computer are for graphical and
statistical work, with the spreadsheet and a graph-drawing package the two most
common pieces of software. There has been a significant decrease in the use of
mathematical programs and statistical packages, and an expected increase in the use
of the internet. While teachers are using computers less for skill development, its use
is still high, and they have increased the use of demonstrations. Use of the computer
is directed over 80% of the time. This pattern of changing use could not really be
described as teachers warmly adopting the computer, and there are two important
factors worth mentioning here. Only 20.7% of the schools had a technology policy
in place, and when they did it usually comprised general statements such as
Technology should be used wherever possible as an aid to learning, All teachers
are expected to integrate ICT into their teaching and learning practices, Access for
all students to internet or it specified what technology would be used by which year
groups, or set rules for internet access and computer room use. Only rarely did it
include the acquisition and replacement of software and hardware or the professional
development of staff. Such an important omission has been noted previously
(Andrews, 1999). It is not surprising that without such a policy the use of computers
in schools will tend to lack clear focus and direction. The second issue arose when
the 2005 teachers were asked what they thought were the advantages and
disadvantages of using computers (technology) in mathematics. While just 8%
believed that it aided understanding (compared with 32% who thought it made
working quicker or more efficient), 16.8% claimed that it impeded learning or
understanding. As Manoucherhri (1999, p. 37) reported many teachers are not
convinced of usefulness of computers in their instruction, they still feel, like
Cuban (2001), that benefits are small or exaggerated, and students rely on
technology too much. As several teachers in this research put it I feel technology in
lessons is over-rated. I dont feel learning is significantly enhancedI feel claims of
computer benefits in education are often over-stated., Reliance on technology
rather than understanding content. , and Sometimes some students rely too heavily
on [technology] without really understanding basic concepts and unable to calculate
by hand. Clearly teachers have a crucial role to play, and their beliefs and attitudes
are major elements in the progress in computer use. This is an area for further
research.
Acknowledgement
I should like to acknowledge the support of a Ministry of Education of New Zealand,
Teaching, Learning and Research Initiative (TLRI) grant, without which this
research could not have taken place. I am also grateful to Charles Tremlett for his
assistance with some data analysis.
References
Ainsworth, S., Grimshaw, S., Underwood, J. (1999). Teachers implementing
pedagogy through REDEEM, Computers and Education, 33(2-3), 171-187.
Andrews, P. (1999). Some institutional influences on secondary mathematics
teachers use of computers. Education and Information Technologies, 4(2), 113-
128.
Askew, M., & Wiliam, D. (1995). Recent research in mathematics education 5-16,
London: OFSTED.
Becker, H. J. (2000a). Findings from the teaching, learning and computing survey:
Is Larry Cuban right? Paper presented at the 2000 School Technology Leadership
Conference of the Council of Chief State Officers, Washington, DC.
Becker, H. J. (2000b). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other
teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(2), 274-293.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom.
Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Harvard University Press.
Department for Education (1995). Statistical Bulletin, 3/95, Darlington, UK.
Ely, D. P. (1993). Computers in schools and universities in the United States of
America, Educational Technology, 33(9), 53-57.
Ernest, P. (1997). Social constructivism as a philosophy of mathematics. New York:
SUNY Press.
Manoucherhri, A. (1999). Computers and school mathematics reform: Implications
for mathematics teacher education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and
Science Teaching, 18(1), 31-48.
Noss, R. & Hoyles, C. (2000). Changing the rules: Children, creativity and computer
games. In M. O. J. Thomas (Ed.) Proceedings TIME2000 an International
Conference on Technology in Mathematics Education (pp. 219-225). Auckland:
Auckland University.
Ruthven, K. & Hennessy, S. (2002). A practitioner model of the use of computer-
based tools and resources to support mathematics learning and teaching,
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 47-88.
Thomas, M. O. J. (1996). Computers in the mathematics classroom: A survey,
Proceedings of the 19th Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia
Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 556-563.
Thomas, M. O. J., & Holton, D. (2003). Technology as a tool for teaching
undergraduate mathematics. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J.
Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.) Second international handbook of
mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 347390). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Veen, W. (1993). The role of beliefs in the use of information technology:
Implications for teacher education, or teaching the right thing at the right time,
Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 2(2), 139-153.
von Glasersfeld, E. (Ed.) (1991). Radical constructivism in mathematics education.
Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gender and socio-economic issues in the use of digital technologies in
mathematics
Colleen Vale
Victoria University, Australia
colleen.vale@vu.edu.au
This paper has been prepared to address the issues and questions of the theme
access, equity and socio-cultural issues. Findings from two studies are reported. In
the first study gender issues in mathematical learning environments when computers
were used were investigated. In the second effective practices for teaching
disadvantaged or marginalised students with digital technology are canvassed.
Teaching for equity and social justice in the digital age is complex. Teachers need to
be aware that their beliefs and classroom practices may exacerbate gender and
cultural inequalities in mathematics learning. Approaches that are consistent with
social-constructivist and democratic theories need further investigation.
In this paper a synopsis of previous research of equity issues in computer-based

secondary mathematics, especially gender issues, and findings from current work that
is focussing on responding to diversity and disadvantage of students in mathematics
when using digital technologies, are described. The issues raised in this paper
concern students engagement in and attitudes to mathematics learning with digital
technologies, teachers practices and pedagogical approaches that erode or enhance
equity and social justice in these environments and the theoretical frameworks that
inform and arise from the studies.
Equity involves equal access, equal treatment and equal outcomes in mathematics
learning, participation and attitudes (Fennema, 1995). Teaching for social justice
requires a commitment to closing the gap and involves fairness, respect, inclusivity
and redressing power imbalances (Boaler, 2002; Skovsmose & Valero, 2002).
Impact of digital technology on gender equity

In an earlier ICMI Study Gender and Mathematics Education it was reported that
the use of technology in mathematics might erode the advances made toward gender
equity in mathematics (Hanna and Nyhof-Young, 1995). Only a few people have
investigated gender issues with respect to the use of technology in mathematics. In
the context of a narrowing gap in gender differences in achievement in Australia but
persistent differences in senior secondary mathematics participation (Vale, Forgasz &
Horne, 2004) I began to explore the proposition of threats to equity.
The research involved a grade 8, grade 9 and grade 10 mathematics class and their
teachers. The classes were located in two schools where the students came from
socio-economic backgrounds that were in the mid-range in Victoria, Australia. The
research focussed on classroom practices and culture when using computers in
mathematics as previous studies had shown the relationship between classroom
practices and differentiated learning outcomes (Fennema, 1995). It was naturalistic in
the sense that it sought to study what was actually happening in classrooms rather
than to invoke change or innovation using ethnographic methods. Mathematics
lessons were observed and video-taped, teachers and students were interviewed, and
students completed a questionnaire. Teachers determined the content and learning
approaches used in the classrooms and we negotiated the timing of the study.
Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to analyse the data collected.
The grade 8 class was timetabled in a computer laboratory for one lesson each week.
Students in the grade 9 class owned (or leased) laptop computers that they brought to
school each day. They were used for some lessons, when appropriate to the content as
determined by the teacher. Students in the grade 10 class used computers for only one
topic in the year. They accessed a computer laboratory for three consecutive lessons
for this topic. These learning settings are typical of the range of contexts in which
teachers can access computers for mathematics lessons. The content of the lessons
observed included algebra, number and geometry. Grade 8 students used PowerPoint
to present and explain the solution of multi-step linear equations and a spreadsheet to
solve applied problems about percentage change. Grade 9 students learned to use
dynamic geometry software, completed two guided investigations on geometric
properties and a project on the construction of various geometric shapes. Grade 10
students learned to use Graphmatica and used it to investigate the family of quadratic
functions and to solve problems about the paths of bouncing balls.
The classroom cultures and students attitudes and the factors influencing these
findings are presented here. Data are to support these findings are published
elsewhere (Vale, 1998; Vale, 2002; Vale, 2003; Vale & Leder, 2004). The students in
these classrooms were motivated to complete the tasks and with a few exceptions
they worked individually on their computers. While the behaviours and attitudes of
girls and boys were similar in many respects, the classrooms were masculine domains
since the behaviours and interests of the boys defined the cultural norms of the
classroom. The boys were louder and took up more space (and in the year 9 class
they outnumbered girls 2:1); they were more demonstrative and public about their
computer knowledge and competitive about their achievements in mathematics and
with computers, a finding consistent with previous studies of gender (Boaler, 1997;
Forgasz & Leder, 1996; Schofeld, 1995). Boys benefited in these computer-based
mathematics classrooms because they took control of their own learning to learn
more about computers. They did this through their off-task activities such as loading
software and searching the Internet. Girls and their needs and interests were on the
periphery in these classrooms; they did not participate in general classroom
discussions, male students denigrated their achievement and the teachers were
generally ignorant of their computer skills, especially girls with lower mathematics
achievement. Some high achieving girls worked individually as silent participants.
Students were positive about the use of computers in mathematics and considered it a
natural learning environment for the 21st century. However, girls viewed the use
computers in mathematics less favourably than boys. Boys believed that computers
were a male domain and that they provided pleasure, relevance and success in
mathematics. Girls more often commented on whether computers aided their learning
or enabled success in mathematics and high achieving girls in particular were
concerned that the use of computers may lead to deterioration in their mathematics
skills. More positive attitudes to computers by males have been commonly observed
in studies of computing in education. Forgasz (2002) found that the socio-economic
status of students mediated gender differences in attitudes to computers in
mathematics. Students of high and low socio-economic status were more likely to
gender-stereotype the use of computers in mathematics.
In these classrooms the students used the computers as a tool for doing mathematics.
There were relatively few interactions between students about the mathematical
concepts that they were exploring. When these did occur they were between high
achieving boys, who were more likely to comment that computers aided learning of
mathematics. High achieving girls also displayed efficient strategies when using the
computers to solve problems in the different classrooms. Attitude to the use of
computers for learning mathematics was more strongly correlated with attitudes to
computers than to mathematics, and this was more strongly the case for boys than
girls (Vale & Leder, 2004). Galbraith, Haines and Pemberton (1999) also observed
this phenomenon among tertiary students of mathematics but they did report any
findings by gender.
Teachers practices
Teachers practices, beliefs about computers and mathematics learning, expectations
of students and lack of experience with computers and software in junior secondary
mathematics, contributed to the culture of these classrooms. The data showed that the
approaches and views of the teachers were more strongly in accord with the learning
preferences and views of boys.
Many of the tasks observed in these classrooms were consistent with a constructivist
approach to learning mathematics, and they had the potential of promoting
collaboration in the classroom and engagement in mathematical thinking but this
rarely occurred and not for lower achieving students. Furthermore, the teachers in this
study perceived computers to be a tool and an opportunity for student enjoyment in
mathematics and the grade 8 teacher believed he had a responsibility to teach and use
generic software in his mathematics program and sought ways to do this. The grade 9
teacher believed that high achieving mathematics students would benefit the most
from using computers.
Teachers differentiated their interactions between girls and boys in the classrooms
and according to the mathematical achievement level of students. They were more
likely to interact with high achieving students about the mathematical concepts. The
grade 8 teacher spent long periods of time individually instructing students with
fewer computer literacy skills or confidence. They held gender stereotyped views of
students and assumed boys to be the computer experts in these classrooms and called
on them to solve problems. They did not acknowledge the computer skills of lower
achieving girls who took on different roles in these classroom settings as successful
tutors. Opportunities to engage these students in mathematical thinking while using
technology were missed. If mathematics teachers believe boys know about
computers and girls learn computers, then teachers will have different expectations
of students in computer-based mathematics lessons.
These teachers needed to be more explicit about the mathematical learning objectives
of these tasks, to facilitate collaboration among students and to discuss the processes
and findings of their investigations and problem solving in the public forum, for the
benefit of all students. They could have provided opportunities for students to
generate their own questions, draw on their own ideas, use other software or
mathematics knowledge and to work in groups. According to the data gathered from
student interviews these approaches would have appealed to the girls and boys in this
study. The findings from this study indicate that teachers need to reflect on their own
practice and beliefs and the way that these impact on the attitudes and performance of
the different groups of girls and boys in their classrooms.
Type of digital technology
A range of software accessed through computers, either desktops in a laboratory or
laptops were used. Did this make a difference to gender equity? One might argue that
the cultural norms would be similar in normal classroom settings for these teachers
and students. The control that students exercised with computers, especially
laptops, resulted in gendered patterns of activity. Boys used these lessons as an
opportunity to learn more about computers and to have fun. Girls were less likely to
have computers at home and had less experience of computers. Girls with fewer
opportunities to use computers relied on learning their computer skills in classrooms.
Without adequate support from their peers or the teacher, students who were not
computer literate were excluded from the mathematical learning. Fennema (1995)
argued that there has been little progress toward gender equity for lower-achieving
girls and findings from this study suggest that this phenomenon is evident in
computer-based classrooms. Would hand-held digital technologies be any different?
Shaoff-Grubbs (1995) reported positive achievement and attitude outcomes for girls
using graphics calculators, but there have been few gender-based studies. The
propensity of girls to use and perform better than boys with by hand methods for
algebra items in graphics calculator and CAS environments (Forster & Mueller,
2001; Tynan & Asp, 1998) suggests that further research is warranted.
Responding to diversity and disadvantage

In the current research and work with teachers I have begun to document teaching
practices that will support the learning of disadvantaged and marginalised students in
technology-based mathematics. Teachers who regularly used digital technologies in
their junior secondary classrooms and who gave priority to enabling all students to
experience success when using digital technologies were selected. Eight junior
secondary mathematics teachers have been involved in the first stage of this project.
They are teachers in some of the most disadvantaged schools in Melbourne. Their
schools are located in communities with below average socio-economic status, high
proportions of students from non-English speaking backgrounds where the most
disadvantaged are recent refugees or students living in poverty. I interviewed each of
the teachers and we spent one whole day together presenting and sharing teaching
materials and strategies.
Each teacher defined equity in terms of equal treatment and fairness, and developing
mutual respect. Two teachers were also committed to closing the gap by improving
the outcomes of their students relative to students from more advantaged socio-
economic backgrounds. They talked about empowering their students.
The framework for beginning to document and analyse teaching practices is drawn
from a number of studies on inclusive practices and social justice (for example,
Boaler, 2002; Hayes, Lingard & Mills, 2000; Skovsmose & Valero, 2002). It is
summarised using six main characteristics of teaching for equity and social justice:
equal access to learning and the use of digital technologies; connected learning;
collaborative methods; supportive environments; intellectual quality and respect for
difference. Brief descriptions of these ideas and a few examples gathered through this
project are presented below.
Equal access is non-trivial. Ensuring that students in schools that are poorly
resourced with digital technologies or from poor family backgrounds means that this
concept extends beyond merely ensuring that students in a class have equal time
hands on with materials and digital technologies. Furthermore as observed in the
previous study, the cultural norms of the classroom are critical if students are to be
included in mathematical practice and thinking. Teachers in the current study talked
about the strategies that they are using to get access to digital technologies for their
students and also to find ways of closing the gap for their students. These included
school initiatives to provide computers for some families and the provision of
additional hands on time in class and homework sessions for students who do not
have computers or the Internet at home.
The teachers used some approaches related to constructivist, inclusive and
democratic theories of connectedness and empowerment. They described learning
tasks that enabled students to build on their prior knowledge, in particular their skills
with technology. This was especially the case for two of the teachers who used
integrated projects that were socially and culturally relevant to their students. In these
projects students explored mathematical concepts or applications and presented their
findings using a range of digital media or conducted other inquiries using
mathematics and statistics with technology to communicate their findings. These
projects were open-ended and aspects of the tasks were negotiated with students.
Making mathematics relevant was clearly a goal for teachers. But what are the
empowering mathematical concepts, skills and teacher practices in the context of
digital technologies? Four of the teachers believed that a focus on the language of
mathematics was particularly important for their empowering their students.
Selecting or designing tasks based on what students knew and understood about
mathematics was less apparent in their practise. One teacher described an
investigation of the relationship between the diameter and circumference of a circle
after discovering that her grade 9 students held some misconceptions about pi. Each
student in the class entered data into a spreadsheet on one laptop connected to a data
projector. This teacher described a strong sense of community inquiry as students
discussed and asked questions in response to the immediate feedback available by the
technology being used in this way.
Collaborative practices recognise the importance of discussion and social interaction
for the learning of mathematics and students are encouraged to share their knowledge
and skills and to explain their thinking. Presentation and discussion of findings from
integrated projects and problem solving tasks was important practice for two of these
teachers, but group work with technology was not a common practice. Perhaps this
was because all but one of the teachers used computers rather than graphic
calculators with their students and they wanted to ensure hands on access for all
students. Three teachers used particular seating plans in computer laboratories in
order to facilitate peer tutoring and assistance, but effective practices for group work
with computers needs to be documented.
In supportive learning environments students feel safe, free from abuse, and
respected. Expectations for mathematical thinking and practices are made explicit for
students and teachers model and scaffold mathematical thinking in the classroom.
The concept of fairness, equal treatment and respectful relationships with students
were common meanings of equity and social justice given by the teachers. One
teacher deliberately used the grouping of students and seating plans in the computer
laboratory to develop more understanding, respect and harmony among his students
of diverse cultural backgrounds and educational talents. Each of these teachers
demonstrated the technical skills to model mathematical practices with technology
and they used guided investigations. Three of them believed that detailed step-by-step
instructions were important. In three of the schools students accessed learning tasks
through the school network. One of these teachers included voice-overs and another
imbedded hints as comments in the instructions and examples that she provided her
students for problem solving tasks. Another teacher talked about the need to design
questions in written instructions that would support students to interpret the dynamic
visual feedback afforded in digital environments.
High expectations and engagement of all students in meaningful mathematical
thinking are central to social justice. One way in which teachers in the current study
conveyed their expectations was through the dissemination of criteria for assessment
tasks, especially the integrated projects. One teacher showed her students examples
of similar projects. She gave particular importance to thinking creatively and
providing the opportunity to display high-level skills with technology. Four of these
teachers regularly used non-routine problems in digital environments to engage
students in higher-order thinking and provide challenge. They commented that the
instant visual feedback of the digital environment afforded students the freedom to
experiment without the fear of failure and public disclosure.
Two teachers in particular talked about the need to understand students cultural
background and create tolerance and respect within their classrooms. While teachers
generally recognised gender differences and used real data and applications of
mathematics related to the interests of their students, both boys and girls, only one
was concerned that they were using mono-cultural contexts for their real life
applications of mathematics.
Conclusion
Australia is one of the few countries that have consistently shown no significant
gender differences in achievement in the large international studies over the last
decade (TIMMS and PISA studies) but socio-economic differences in achievement
are more dramatic in Australia than for the OECD average. The research into gender
issues summarised in this paper reveals practices that threaten advances toward
gender equity. Paying attention to gender issues when using digital technology in
mathematics is necessary if further progress is to be made in achieving gender equity
in achievement and participation in mathematics around the world.
Further there is reasonable concern that the use of technology in mathematics may
focus on the learning and needs of the most successful and socially advantaged
mathematics students (Hoyles, 1998). Indeed, a report of a recent global survey to
gather cases of exemplary innovative practises in the use of digital technology in
education included very few cases that focussed on disadvantaged or marginalised
groups (Kosma, 2003). I have attempted to shed some light on the practice of
teachers working with disadvantaged students. We need to continue to work toward
empowering disadvantaged and marginalised students in the digital age.
References
Boaler, J. (2002). Learning from teaching: Exploring the relationship between reform
curriculum and equity, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 239
258.
Fennema, E. (1995). Mathematics, gender and research. In B. Grevholm and G.
Hanna (Eds.) Gender and Mathematics Education, An ICMI Study in Stiftsgarden,
Akersberg, Hoor, Sweden, 1993 (pp. 21-38). Lund: Lund University Press.
Forgasz, H. (2002). Computers for the learning of mathematics: Equity
considerations. In B. Barton, K. Irwin, M. Pfannkuch & M. Thomas (Eds.)
Mathematics education in the South Pacific (Proceedings of the 25th annual
conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia,
Auckland, pp. 260-267). Auckland: MERGA.
Forster, P.A. & Mueller, U. (2001). Outcomes and implications of students use of
graphics calculators in the public examination of calculus. International Journal of
Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 32, 37-52.
Galbraith, P., Haines, C. & Pemberton, M. (1999). A Tale of Two Cities: When
mathematics, computers and students meet. In J. Truran & K. Truran (Eds.)
Making the difference (Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of The
Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Inc., Adelaide, pp. 215-
222). Adelaide: MERGA.
Hanna, G. & Nyhof-Young, J. (1995). An ICMI study on gender and mathematics
education: Key issues and questions. In B. Grevholm and G. Hanna (Eds.) Gender
and mathematics education, An ICMI study in Stiftsgarden, Akersberg, Hoor,
Sweden, 1993 (pp. 7-14). Lund: Lund University Press.
Hayes, D., Lingard, B. & Mills, M. (2000). Productive pedagogies. Education Links,
60, 10-13.
Kozma, R. B. (2003). Technology, Innovation and Educational Change: A Global
Perspective. A project of the International Association for the Evaluation of
Educational Achievement. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in
Education.
Schofield, J. W. (1995). Computers and Classroom Culture. Cambridge, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Shoaf-Grubbs, M. (1995). Research results on the effect of the graphic calculator on
female students cognitive levels and visual thinking. In L Burton & B. Jaworski
(Eds.) Technology in Mathematics Teaching: A bridge between teaching and
learning (pp. 213-230). Lund, Sweden: Chartwell-Bratt Ltd.
Skovsmose, O., & Valero, P. (2002). Democratic access to powerful mathematical
ideas. In L.D. English (Ed.) Handbook of international research in mathematics:
Directions for the 21st century (pp. 383-407). Mahwah, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Tynan, D. & Asp, G. (1998). Exploring the impact of CAS in early algebra. In C.
Kanes, M. Goos and E. Warren (Eds.) Teaching Mathematics in New Times
(Proceedings of the 21st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research
Group of Australasia, Gold Coast, pp. 546-552). Brisbane: MERGA.
Vale, C. (2003). Computers in mathematics: a super highway to social justice? In L.
Burton (Ed.) Which way social justice in mathematics education? (pp.277-301).
Westport, CT: Praeger Press.
Vale, C. (2002). Girls back off mathematics again: the views and experiences of girls
in computer based mathematics, Mathematics Education Research Journal 14, 52-
68.
Vale, C., Forgasz, H. & Horne, M. (2004). Gender and mathematics: Back to the
future? In B. Perry, C. Diezmann & G. Anthony (Eds.) Review of Research in
Mathematics Education in Australasia 2000 2003 (pp. in press). Sydney:
MERGA.
Vale, C. & Leder, G. (2004). Student views of computer based mathematics in the
middle years: Does gender make a difference? Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 56, 287-312.
The examination of Computer Algebra Systems (CAS) integration into
university-level mathematics teaching
Zsolt Lavicza
University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
zl221@cam.ac.uk
Although the first ICMI study was almost exclusively concerned with the integration of
technology into university-level mathematics, there has been little focus on this phase of
education as technology-related research has become dominated by school-level
studies. Computer Algebra Systems have quietly become an integral component of
university-level mathematics, but little is known about the extent of CAS use and the
factors influencing its integration into university curricula. School-level studies suggest
that beyond the availability of technology, teachers conceptions and cultural elements
are key factors in technology integration into mathematics teaching and learning. In
this proposal I report on an ongoing project and summarize results of the first phase of
this study, which is based on interviews and observations of 22 mathematicians in three
countries, Hungary, UK, and US. In addition, I outline the development of the second-
phase in which a questionnaire will be sent to a sample of 3500 mathematicians in the
participating countries to investigate the extent of current CAS use and to examine
factors influencing CAS integration into university-level mathematics education. My
research contributes to the ICMI-17 by considering cultural diversity, reflecting on
actual uses of technology and addressing potential impact of CAS upon mathematics
teaching and learning in universities.
The first ICMI study in 1985 reviewed the history, the potentials, the
constraints, and the impact of computers on mathematics and its teaching
and learning (Churchhouse et al., 1986). Despite difficulties articulated by
several of its authors, the study presented an optimistic future for
technology integration into mathematics education. Some years later, due
to increasing accessibility to both computers and calculators, Kaput (1992)
predicted that technology would become rapidly integrated into all levels of
education. However, the accumulated evidence of the last fifteen years
indicates that this prediction has not been realized with technology still
playing a marginal role in mathematics teaching and learning (Cuban,
Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001; Ruthven & Hennessy, 2002).
The first ICMI study was almost exclusively concerned with the integration
of technology into university-level mathematics (Holton, 2001). More
recently, despite a small number of studies reporting on innovative
technology-assisted teaching practices and examination of university
students learning, technology mediated mathematics education research
has been dominated by school-level studies (Lagrange, Artigue, Laborde, &
Trouche, 2003).
Papers in the ICMI-11 study discuss, inter alia, the role of technology in a
variety of mathematics courses taught in universities, accounts of the ways
in which technology can be used to enhance students learning, and the
impact of technology on classroom communication (King, Hillel, &
Artigue, 2001). However, the study provides neither an overview of the
extent of technology use in universities nor discusses the reasons for the
slowness of technology integration, preferring to offer examples of
particular practices in particular universities in particular countries. The
totality of the report suggests that technology use remains cosmetic
(Hillel, 2001).
Even though little is known about the state of technology use in
universities, recent surveys tell us much about its use in school
mathematics and the factors influencing its classroom integration at both
national (Becker, 2000; Ofsted, 2004) and international levels (Gonzales et
al., 2004; OECD, 2004). These studies suggest that investment in
technology can enhance, but not guarantee, increased use of ICT in
education, although the TIMSS 2003 study implies that funding for
educational technology may not increase the actual use of ICT1 in
classrooms (Gonzales et al., 2004). Other studies, which have investigated
the cause of slow technology integration, suggest that, beyond the
accessibility of technology and policy pressures, teachers beliefs and
attitudes as well as cultural aspects are vital factors influencing technology
integration (Hennessy, Ruthven, & Brindley, 2005; Ruthven & Hennessy,
2002). In addition, international comparative studies have reinforced the
importance of cultural aspects by demonstrating that teachers didactical
beliefs and conceptions of the subject, as well as the characteristics of their
classrooms and their relation to technology, are heavily affected by
teaching traditions and geographic locations (Andrews & Hatch, 2000).
Results from such school-based studies may be applicable to the university
setting, but a systematic investigation essential.
Aims of the study
Due to the paucity of university-level research outlined above, I designed a
study to investigate the current use of technology together with the factors
that influence its integration into university mathematics education. In my
study, I focus on a specific technology application, Computer Algebra
Systems (CAS), because this type of software package is the most widely
used in university mathematics education. CAS is explicitly designed to
carry out mathematical operations (not a general technology application
such as a web-based homework system); and CAS has the potential to
become a mathematical tool in students future studies and career (Artigue,
2005). Specifically, my study aims to examine:
1
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). Frequently used as a reference to technology (-
ies) in the UK.
the extent and manner of CAS use in university mathematics
departments;
the pedagogical and mathematical conceptions of university
mathematicians regarding CAS, including the factors influencing
their professional use of CAS; and
the extent to which nationally situated teaching traditions, frequently
based on unarticulated assumptions, influence mathematicians
conceptions of and motivation for using CAS.
I decided to adopt an international comparative approach in order to
understand more completely different teaching traditions and subject-
related conceptions (Andrews & Hatch, 2000) at the university level. The
participating countries, Hungary, the United Kingdom (UK), and the
United States (US), pose a variety of cultural and economic considerations.
Obviously, my selection has also been influenced by my personal and
professional background, as well as by my familiarity with the higher
education systems of these countries. However, international comparative
literature advocates the comparison of considerably dissimilar (Hungary vs.
UK, US) and similar (UK, US) teaching traditions to elicit similarities and
differences (Kaiser, 1999).
Methodology, methods, and preliminary results
To investigate the outlined aims I designed a two-phase study following a
mixed method methodology (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The first,
qualitative, phase of the study explored those issues that influenced
university mathematics lecturers CAS-assisted teaching. In this phase, I
interviewed 22 mathematicians, observed classes, and collected course
materials in Hungary, the UK, and the US. Data were analysed by means of
a grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin,
1998). Building on the results of the first phase, I am designing a large-
scale quantitative study to further examine the issues that emerged from the
analysis of the first phase data, to gauge the extent of CAS use in
universities, and to uncover additional issues that did not surface in the
initial phase of the study.
The analysis of the first phase data identified three clusters of issues:
1. Personal characteristics
2. External factors (institutional and technology issues)
3. Mathematicians conceptions (of mathematics, mathematics
teaching/learning, CAS, CAS teaching/learning)
Many of these issues will be further investigated in the second phase of my
study, but space does not permit a detailed discussion here. (A more
complete list of the subcategories of these issues can be found in Lavicza
(In review). However, I highlight three of the more interesting findings of
this phase below.
Firstly, similarly to results of school-level studies, academics conceptions,
proved to be a crucial factor in technology integration into mathematics
teaching. Moreover, their conceptions appear more important an influence
than for schoolteachers because, due to the academic freedoms of
university life, they are less prone to policy pressures. Also,
mathematicians are less constrained than schoolteachers by prescribed
curricula and uniform examinations. Therefore, mathematicians have better
opportunities than schoolteachers to experiment with technology
integration in their teaching. However, academics are frequently more
concerned with research than teaching and so experiments with technology
in their teaching may be seen as counterproductive.
Secondly, mathematicians primary use of CAS in their teaching is to
enhance the transmission of mathematical concepts. Many described using
CAS to illustrate mathematical concepts and I did not encounter any
instance when they referred to CAS use as a motivational tool. In contrast,
school-level studies report that teachers often emphasize the use of
technology as motivational and classroom management tools (Hennessy et
al., 2005; Ruthven & Hennessy, 2002). This result challenges the
applicability of school-level findings to university settings while presenting
new possibilities for collaboration that may enhance the integration of
technology at all levels of mathematics education.
Thirdly, school-level studies demonstrated noteworthy differences in
teachers conceptions of mathematics and its teaching owing to nationally
situated teaching traditions (Andrews & Hatch, 2000). In my study, no
distinctive teaching traditions of technology use at the university-level were
identified. This may be due to the fact that the participants of my study
constituted an internationally mobile group with many experienced in or
aware of international university-level teaching practices and research. In
addition, the use of technology in university teaching is a fairly recent
endeavour. This result accords with Atweh, Clarkson, and Nebres (2003)
idea that mathematics research and mathematics education have become an
international enterprise, particularly at the university level.
For the quantitative phase of the study, I am designing a web-based
questionnaire for sending to 35002 mathematicians in Hungary, the UK,
and the US. In part this will draw on the results of the first phase but will
2
This preliminary estimate is based on the estimated population of 35,000 mathematicians in the selected
three counties and the desired 20% response rate for the web questionnaire. Detailed sampling strategy is
available upon request.
also attempt to uncover additional issues relating to the aims of the study.
Therefore, sections of the questionnaire will enquire about:
1. the current use of CAS by selected participants;
2. participants personal characteristics and institutional settings;
3. participants variety of conceptions of CAS, CAS-assisted teaching,
role of CAS in the field of mathematics and mathematics teaching.
It is my expectation that the analysis of the questionnaire data will expose
relationships between participants personal characteristics and institutional
settings, their CAS use in teaching and research, their conceptions of
mathematics, and their CAS-related conceptions. Furthermore, I plan to
exploit factor analytic and structural equation modelling techniques to
uncover additional factors that influence CAS integration at universities.
My study will contribute to our knowledge of CAS and its use at the
university level by
providing an overview of CAS use at a large number of universities;
identifying factors that influence CAS integration at universities and
highlight similarities and differences between university- and school-
level results;
allowing insight into mathematicians understanding of and thinking
about CAS and the impact of their teaching/cultural traditions;
pinpointing some effects of nationally based teaching traditions of
CAS use at the university level and mathematicians conceptions of
CAS-assisted teaching.
Results of the study will enable researchers and practitioners to
pinpoint directions for improvements and show limits of CAS
applicability at universities;
align research into local practices with international trends;
assist in the possible development of CAS training workshops;
improve the mathematical preparation of university students.
Once this second aspect of the study has been completed a number of
possible research directions present themselves. The study may reveal
issues for examination by means of a qualitative study. If, as I hope, the
questionnaire proves effective, the study could be replicated in a larger set
of countries. In addition, a similar study could be conducted in schools to
uncover similarities and differences in university- and school-level use of
technology. Furthermore, it would be possible to collaborate with
mathematicians as well as school teachers to develop curricula, supporting
materials, and a variety of workshops to enhance the use of technology in
mathematics education.
If invited to the ICMI-17 conference, I would be able to report on the data
collection of both phases of my study and outline the preliminary results of
the entire research project.
Contributions to the ICMI-17 study
The research reported in this proposal supports the aims of the ICMI-17
study, as set out in the discussion document, in the following ways.
My work aims to identify and analyze aspects of technology integration,
primarily in universities (diverse curricular organizations), but also
consider connections with pre-university level mathematics education. In
addition, my study incorporates and investigates cultural diversity as it
takes an international comparative approach to compare the use of
technology in a less developed (Hungary) with more developed countries
(UK, US) in terms of ICT resources and investment in educational
technology . My study addresses well the following aim of the ICMI-17
study:
ICMI Study 17 will also seek to take account of cultural diversity and how
issues of culture alongside those related to teacher beliefs and practice all shape
the way digital technologies are used and their impact on mathematics and its
teaching and learning. (Hoyles & Lagrange, 2005, p.4)
My work is also in line with the following two ICMI-17 study aims:
1) to reflect on actual uses of technology in mathematics education, avoiding mere
speculations on hypothetical prospects
2) to address the range of hardware and software with a potential to impact upon or
contribute to mathematics teaching and learning. (Hoyles & Lagrange, 2005,
p.4)
Although my study concentrates on a particular software package its results
should be applicable to a wider range of applications. The examination of
CAS is significant for technology-related research because such packages
explicitly focus on mathematical activities and do not only reorganize
communication in classrooms.
I believe that my research best fits Theme 3 Teachers and teaching as it
contributes to many of the questions raised in the Studys discussion
document. Particularly, it addresses the three questions:
How are teachers' beliefs, attitudes, mathematical and pedagogical knowledge
shaped and shaped by their use of digital technologies in mathematics teaching
and how are these issues influenced by access to resources and by differences in
culture?
What can we learn from teachers who use, or who have tried to use, digital
technologies for mathematics teaching?
How can teachers be supported in deciding why, when and how to implement
technological resources into their teaching practices? (Hoyles & Lagrange,
2005, p.8)
References
Andrews, P., & Hatch, G. (2000). A Comparison of Hungarian and English Teachers'
Conceptions of Mathematics and Its Teaching. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 43, 3164.
Artigue, M. (2005). The integration of symbolic calculators into secondary education:
some lessons from didactical engineering. In D. Guin & K. Ruthven & L.
Trouche (Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators - Turning a
computational device into a mathematical instrument (pp. 197-231). New York,
NY: Springer Inc.
Atweh, B., Clarkson, P., & Nebres, B. (2003). Mathmatics Education in International
and Global Context. In A. J. Bishop & M. A. Clements & C. Keitel & J.
Kilpatrick & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second International Handbook of
Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 185-229). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Becker, H. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning and computer survey: is Larry
Cuban right? Teaching, learning, and computing: National Survey Report.
Irvine, California: Center for Research on Information Technology and
Organizations, University of California Irvine.
Churchhouse, R. F., Cornu, B., Howson, A. G., Kahane, J. P., van Lint, J. H., Pluvinage,
F., Ralston, A., & Yamaguti, M. (Eds.). (1986). The Influence of Computers and
Informatics on Mathematics and its Teaching. ICMI Study Series (Vol. 1).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies
in high school classrooms: Explaining the apparent paradox. American
Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for
qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
Gonzales, P., Guzman, J. C., Partelow, L., Pahlke, E., Jocelyn, L., Kastberg, D., &
Williams, T. (2004). Highlights From the Trends in International Mathematics
and Science Study: TIMSS 2003. National Center for Education Statistics
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved, from
the World Wide Web:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005005
Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating
ICT into subject teaching: commitment, constraints, caution, and change. J.
Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155-192.
Hillel, J. (2001). Trends in Curriculum - A working group report. In D. Holton (Ed.),
The Teaching and Learning of Mathematics at University Level: An ICMI Study
(pp. 59-69). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Holton, D. (Ed.). (2001). The Teaching and Learning of Mathematics at University
Level: An ICMI Study (Vol. 11). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Hoyles, C., & Lagrange, J. B. (2005). ICMI-17 Study Discussion document: Digital
technologies and mathematics teaching and learning: Rethinking the terrain -
The Seventeenth ICMI Study "Technology Revisited". International Commission
on Mathematics Instruction. Retrieved, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.math.msu.edu/~nathsinc/ICMI/
Johnson, B. R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: a research
paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Kaiser, G. (1999). International Comparisons in Mathematics Education under the
Perspective of Comparative Education. In G. Kaiser & E. Luna & I. Huntley
(Eds.), International Comparisons in Mathematics Education (Vol. 11, pp. 3-
15). London: Falmer Press.
Kaput, J. J. (1992). Technology and Mathematics Education. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.),
Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 515-556).
New York: Macmillan.
King, K., Hillel, J., & Artigue, M. (2001). Technology - A working group report. In D.
Holton (Ed.), The Teaching and Learning of Mathematics at University Level:
An ICMI Study (pp. 349-356). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Lagrange, J. B., Artigue, M., Laborde, C., & Trouche, L. (2003). Technology and
mathematics education: multidimensional overview of recent research and
innovation. In A. J. Bishop & M. A. Clements & C. Keitel & J. Kilpatrick & F.
K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Mathematics Education
(Vol. 1, pp. 237-270). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lavicza, Z. (In review). Factors influencing the integration of Computer Algebra
Systems into university-level mathematics education. International Journal of
Technology in Mathematics Education.
OECD. (2004). Learning for Tomorrow's World First Results from PISA 2003. OECD
- Programme for International Student Assessment. Retrieved, from the World
Wide Web: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/60/34002216.pdf
Ofsted. (2004). ICT in schools - The impact of government initiatives five years on.
Office for Standards in Education. Retrieved, from the World Wide Web:
www.ofsted.gov.uk
Ruthven, K., & Hennessy, S. (2002). A Practitioner Model of the Use of Computer-
Based Tools and Resources to Support Mathematics Teaching and Learning.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 47-88.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Evolving technologies integrated into undergraduate mathematics education
Chantal Buteau1 and Eric Muller2
Department of Mathematics, Brock University, CANADA
{cbuteau,emuller}@brocku.ca
This submission focuses on the design of learning environments and curricula and describes a
twenty-five year evolution of integrating digital technology3 in the teaching and learning of
mathematics at Brock University. It provides information on actual uses of technology in
university level programs for students, majoring in mathematics, or taking mathematics for their
major in another discipline, or aiming to be teachers. A brief history explains the ever increasing
use of established mathematics and statistics computer systems in courses and programs until the
Department had gained enough experience with technologies to institute a new core mathematics
program MICA (Mathematics Integrating Computers and Applications). Student interest in the
MICA program is demonstrated by a threefold increase in mathematics majors. The submission
pays special attention to the role of the teacher. First, a new faculty member reflects on the
teaching adjustments she made to teach in a department that has built an array of technologies
into its courses. Second, it explains how technology, in a first year core mathematics course, helps
to shift the mediator responsibilities from the teacher to the student. Of particular significance is
the students enthusiasm and willingness to work beyond all expectations on their main project in
which they construct Learning Objects.
Introduction
There are many publications (for examples Kallaher (1), and Baglivo (2)) that
describe the integration of established Computer Mathematical Systems (for example
Maple) and Computer Data and Statistical Analysis Systems (for example SAS (4))
into mathematics and statistics education at the university level. Because of this
wealth of publications and because the Department of Mathematics at Brock
University had, by the mid 1990s, integrated such systems in the majority of its
courses, we will focus our discussion on the Departments next evolution. We
describe how the Department integrated communication technology (e.g. Internet)
and environment building technology (e.g. VB.NET (5)), into an innovative core
mathematics program called MICA (Mathematics Integrating Computers and
Applications). For us it is evident that this step was only possible because the
majority of faculty had substantial teaching experience in courses that integrate
technology in a significant way. The MICA courses provide working examples of
mathematics learning environments that integrate technologies. Furthermore, within
these courses, students learn how to construct technological environments to explore
mathematics. Future teachers have an important place in these courses as they learn
to develop technological learning environments that focus on the didactical
development of mathematical concepts.
1
Chantal Buteau joined the department in 2004 as Assistant Professor. She was hired to be involved in the MICA
courses and future mathematics teachers.
2
Eric Muller is Professor Emeritus and has spearheaded the integration of technology into mathematics programs at
Brock University. He was one of the participants of the first ICMI Study on Technology.
3
In what follows the term digital will be understood whenever we mention technology.
2
This submission is made by two practitioners who, in the words of the
Discussion document, can make solid practical and scientific contributions to ICMI
Study 17. The reader will find; in Section 1 a brief 25 year history of the integration
of technologies in mathematics programs at Brock; in Section 2, a discussion of one
role that evolving technologies can play in mathematics education; in Section 3, a
summary of important aspects of the MICA courses; in Section 4, a description of
some didactical considerations that were introduced in MICA specifically for future
mathematics teachers, and; in Section 5, a reflection by Buteau on the challenges and
adjustments that were required in her teaching in order for her students to achieve the
learning expectations of MICA.
Section 1: A brief history of the evolving integration of technologies
In 1985, at the time of the first ICMI Study, the Department of Mathematics was
making innovative use of technology in some of its courses. In large enrolment
service courses, some faculty (6) were generating individualized sets of problems for
each student and Muller (7) was assessing an experimental Calculus course with over
100 students who worked with Maple in a laboratory setting. In this presentation we
reflect on the Departments subsequent sustained development of the use of evolving
technologies in its undergraduate mathematics programs. Although one can point to
certain years when major changes were implemented, the reality is that evolution and
innovation in university mathematics education is a slow process. One reason for
this is that few mathematics doctoral programs require teamwork or provide
opportunities for reflection on the teaching and learning of mathematics. Yet these
experiences are necessary for faculty in a department to work as a team and for its
faculty to critically redesign a mathematics program. There is much evidence that
technological innovations that are instituted in a course by a single faculty member
rarely survive when the course is taken over by another colleague. Therefore, for
changes to permeate beyond a set of courses, a consensus needs to be built with the
majority of faculty in a mathematics department. The changes that occurred at
Brock required many hours of discussions between colleagues and demanded that
they approach the subject with open minds. In retrospect, a major argument for the
use of technology and for a complete review of the mathematics programs was
generated from faculty experiences in Maple laboratories. There they observed
student activity and involvement. In general they found that students in laboratories
were much more engaged than in the traditional tutorials and that they were also
asking more significant mathematical questions.
By 1995 a majority of students in all mathematics programs were using
technology in a significant way. In general students were working with Computer
Mathematical Systems or Statistical Analysis Systems. By this time, faculty who
were keeping up with the evolution of technologies, especially in the areas of
communication and computer environment building, were convinced that learner
experiences in mathematics could be further enriched and that these experiences
could be structured so as to lead students towards more independence in learning.
Over the next five years an innovative core program in mathematics was developed
2
3
and approved. The philosophy and aims of this program, MICA are described in the
Brock Teaching journal (8). Student interest in the MICA program is demonstrated
by an increase in mathematics majors from 52 in the first year of the program, 2001,
to 140 in 2005. In the following sections we explore how the faculty worked to meet
MICA guiding principles, including 1) encouraging student creativity and intellectual
independence, and 2) developing mathematical concepts hand in hand with
computers and applications.
Section 2: Evolving roles of technology in mathematics education at Brock
In this discussion we describe the evolution of the use of technologies in Brocks

mathematics programs. In order to facilitate our points of view we shall use the
following definitions :
Digital information data, algorithms, responses, etc. that are available through
technologies;
Knowledge the acquaintance of information obtained through experience or
instruction;
Understanding the power or ability to acquire and interpret knowledge.
A principal aim of integrating technologies into mathematics programs at Brock is
to teach students how to transform information into understanding. Initially the
teaching and learning process matched the one that the Department used before the
birth of digital information, namely
Mediator (teacher) Mediator (teacher)

Provides examples Proposes questions
Information Student Knowledge Student understanding
Figure 1
This model also works well with mathematical technologies such as Maple,
Mathematica (9), Minitab (10), SAS, etc... These are more than repositories of
information, they are intelligent4, in the sense they are capable of generating new
information. A challenge for undergraduate mathematics education continues to be
that such systems can, for the knowledgeable user, provide solutions to most well
structured problems that arise in the first three years of a traditional university
mathematics program. The integration of these technologies into the Brock
mathematics programs changes the first box in Figure 1 and adds digital information
to traditional forms of information (texts, lecture notes, etc.). This addition provides
many ways in which to enrich the base of student knowledge, for example: faculty
can spend more time on the development of mathematical concepts because they and
the students can rely on the technology to provide technical information; alternative
representations are often easily generated; students can work on problems and
applications that are not bound by traditional course information, and; learners can
4
In this text we use the term intelligent to distinguish from technologies that are passive, i.e., strictly provide data.
3
4
explore conceptually advanced mathematical concepts which are normally deferred
until all the analytical skills have been addressed. In summary, by the mid 1990s,
information technologies were well established in a majority of mathematics Brock
courses.
By that time some faculty became aware of the great potential of
communication environment building technologies. Their vision was that a program
would be developed to integrate these and to motivate its students to take on, more
and more, the responsibility of mediator in their own mathematics learning (second
and fourth box in Figure 1). Ralph (11) summarizes the situation as follows: The
central challenge of any mathematics program is to create an environment in which
students become internally directed and personally invested in moving themselves
along the long road to mastery. The problem with traditional undergraduate
mathematics programs in this regard is that if students try to take the initiative in
creating and investigating problems and applications of their own devising, they
quickly come up against difficulties that they cannot handle with purely analytical
tools. For this reason, traditional programs must be very tightly choreographed
around the problems that can be solved by hand and over the years this approach can
become canned and regimented. Technology can offset the rigidity of a traditional
mathematics program by providing students with access to an endless supply of
problems and applications that can be investigated both computationally and
analytically. Therefore the aim of the proposed MICA program was to change the
model in Figure 1 to the following:
Mediator (student) Mediator (student)

Provides examples Proposes questions
Information Student Knowledge Student understanding
Figure 2
In many ways this parallels the development that one would hope for in a
mathematics program that has a core of modelling courses. However students in the
MICA program build on a knowledge base that is more extensive as the information
they have access to includes both passive and intelligent digital sources.
How does one educate a student to become her own mediator and how is this
done as early as possible in their university mathematics experience? At Brock
students take, in their first semester, a course in Calculus and one in Linear Algebra.
Both of these courses include extensive experiences with Maple and with Journey
Through Calculus (12). A brief discussion on the first MICA course that students
take in the second semester and upper year MICA courses will highlight the
approach that the Department has taken to encourage creativity and intellectual
independence as the students develop mediator skills.
Section 3: MICA courses directions and the integration of technologies
4
5
In the first part of the MICA I course, students are exposed to a rich context for
conjectures: prime numbers and Collatz conjecture. During lectures5, students work
in small groups of 3 or 4 and raise original questions and conjectures about the
topics. These are written on the board and a discussion on their testability follows.
For their first assignment, each student designs a program (vb.NET) in which they
explore a conjecture of their own. In the second part of the course, students are
introduced to modular arithmetic leading to the theory behind RSA encryption. The
speed of the theoretical presentation is determined by the students as they lead the
way by making observations and conjectures from explorations, computations and
theorems. Of course the lecturer guides students but importantly he/she reacts to
class questions/ observations/ conjectures that are constantly encouraged and raised.
Students then implement the complete algorithm of RSA encryption. The last topic
in the course is discrete and continuous dynamical systems. Each student designs a
program that outputs numerical values and graphs the cobweb diagrams of the
logistic function. This topic concludes with an exploration, in the lab, of the system
stability which students simultaneously test and visualize the theory with their own
program.
A major part of MICA I is the original final project that encompasses a
computer program and a written report. Each student selects a mathematical topic in
which they are particularly interested and intrigued. Mathematics students focus on a
mathematical investigation. Future teachers design a learning program about an
elementary or high school mathematical concept. Students from another core
discipline investigate a mathematical application to their own discipline. In this
project students essentially construct and implement a Learning Object an
instructional component that focuses on one or two mathematical concepts and that is
designed for another person. These objects are interactive, engaging, easy to use,
and are designed to mediate the user from information to understanding. In the
MICA program Learning Objects may include exploration of a mathematical
conjecture or of a mathematical application. The main goal in MICA I course is to
bring students to experience becoming the mediator through the design of original
Learning Objects.
The first experimental project on Learning Objects at Brock was undertaken in
the summer of 2002. It involved a team composed of mathematics professors,
practicing mathematics teachers, future teachers, and mathematics and computer
science students. Examples of finished products can be viewed on the departmental
website (13). Other examples of Learning Objects developed by students in the
MICA courses are also available (14).
It is our experience that the construction of a Learning Object not only builds
on the designers mathematical and didactical knowledge but it reveals these
understandings in a visual and interactive way.
In the MICA II full year course the focus is on mathematical modelling of
diverse types including, for example, discrete dynamical systems, stochastic models,
5
Presently the course runs with two hours of lectures and two hours of labs per week. The experience of the
Department is that this type of course works best with a maximum enrolment of 35 students in each section.
5
6
Markov chains, empirical models, and queuing models. These topics, covered in the
MICA way, are all implemented (mainly in VB.NET and Maple) by students and are
concluded with simulation and conjectures. For example, students design (VB.NET)
a Learning Object to explore the distribution histograms and graphs of random
variables. This is done before the students see the Central Limit Theorem in their
Statistics course. Therefore students are guided through different computations, and
are asked to develop conjectures based on their observations. Not all students are
able to conjecture the theorem on their own, but after a full class discussion about
plausible conjectures they are able to identify examples of the theorem in their
results. When students finally see the theorem in their statistics class, it is no longer
a theorem outside them, but indeed, it is somehow internalised since they
personalized it within the design and use of their Learning Object. MICA II students
work on two main original projects for which they personally decide on a topic.
Their projects are significantly more sophisticated than in MICA I, since they have a
better mastery of the technology and importantly, they have become more confident
in their role of mediator.
The MICA III full year course is focussed on partial differential equation
modelling including for example heat flow and wave propagation. Guided
assignments and projects (mainly in Maple and C++(15)) each include an original
part in which students have to fully use their role of mediator. For example, students
were assigned to extend and improve some MAPLETs (3) that animate solutions of
particular PDEs. Two students presented their remarkable MAPLET extension at the
Maple Summer Workshop (3) in Summer 2004. With mastery of technology and
with their ability to mediate their own learning, undergraduate students can
contribute to the development of new mathematics.
Section 4: Technologies and the education of future mathematics teachers
Teacher Education in Ontario follows a consecutive model. This means that

individuals interested in teaching must first graduate with a university degree and
then apply to a Faculty of Education for a one-year program. After completing this
additional year they receive a teaching certificate. For future elementary and middle
school teachers and for future mathematics teachers at the secondary level, the
consecutive model clearly places important responsibilities on departments of
mathematics. How can these future teachers be best educated in mathematics to
meet their specific and desired goals? Unfortunately many universities do little more
than to pay lip service to this population of students. Within the Brock community,
Muller has been proactive in negotiations across different Faculties in order to
develop and establish concurrent education programs. In these programs, students
follow integrated studies between a Faculty that offers a teachable subject6 and the
Faculty of Education. For those students who enter university with a desire to
6
Teachable subjects are specified by the Ministry of Education as being appropriate major disciplines for future
teachers
6
7
become teachers, concurrent programs provide opportunities to reflect on didactical
issues starting from their first undergraduate year.
The Mathematics Department at Brock has taken its responsibilities for future
teacher education very seriously and has developed programs or courses for all levels
of school teaching. Appropriate technologies such as Geometers SketchPad
Erreur ! Source du renvoi introuvable. and other Ministry of Education school
licensed programs are used in appropriate courses. Concurrent education students
who aim to specialize in mathematics and to be certified for teaching at the middle
and high school levels, take a majority of the MICA courses which play a
fundamental role for them. They provide a unique opportunity for these future
teachers to reflect on their own development as a mediator. Furthermore in their
MICA projects they construct Learning Objects which have strong didactical
components.
Section 5: Reflections by a new faculty, Chantal Buteau
I am currently in my second year as faculty in the Department and Im coming from

a rather traditional mathematics education7. I knew that I was joining a department
that makes extensive use of technologies in its courses. Therefore I had mixed
feelings, anxiety, insecurity and excitement. In service courses (Calculus and
Statistics for large classes) my main concern was and is to focus on concepts rather
than on computational techniques that can easily be handled using technology. I
admit that it is a constant battle for me. When I was taught these concepts there was
equal emphasis on concepts and computation abilities. Diverse and rich discussions
with colleagues help me to find a good balance. Also, my class preparations keep
changing as I rethink what should be first discovered by students in a guided
assignment using technology rather than directly presented to them. My conception
of assignments and exams also had to be changed. As a new lecturer, it has been a
genuine and enriching challenge not to copy the teaching model I had experienced.
In the MICA I course I faced teaching an innovative course in which the how
to present the theory was more important than the what. On top of this, the how was
supported by a programming environment. Fortunately, during my PhD, I had
experienced some experimental mathematical investigations supported by
technology. This was my beacon together with uncountably many discussions with
my colleague Bill Ralph who has been teaching this course since the MICA program
was first launched. It did take me some time to understand my role in the course.
How can I best assist the students to become the mediator of their own mathematical
development? What mediation should or should not be provided at any particular
time? I had to adjust to the fact that a class can sometimes take a direction different
7
Undergraduate and graduate courses, towards my PhD in mathematics, were relatively traditional and rarely required
the use of technology. My mathematics teaching experience was mainly as a teaching assistant, also in a traditional
setting (no use of computer software). However my main research discipline (mathematical music theory) has required
me to make extensive use of computer programming (JAVA (17) and Mathematica).
7
8
from what I had planed. This is not a secure position for a fairly new lecturer, as I
had to build on class interactivity and not reject it. I challenge students to explore
mathematics on a personal level. Students challenge my traditional education of
mathematics teaching.
The astonishing pride of MICA I students for their final projects confirmed
that the department is for me a great environment for learning how to teach
mathematics in the XXI century.
Conclusions
Technologies are evolving so rapidly that there are many avenues that mathematics
departments can take to integrate them into their mathematics programs. This
submission describes one route that the Department at Brock has taken to structure
technological environments to help students engage in abstract mathematics. We
have found that the approaches, activities, and experiences in the MICA courses are
able to harness the students motivations thereby empowering them to become their
own mediators in the development of their mathematical knowledge and
understanding.
References
(1) Kallaher, M. ,J., (Ed), (1999): Revolutions in Differential Equations: Exploring ODEs with
Modern Technology, MAA Notes, Washington, DC.
(2) Baglivo, J., (2005): Mathematica Laboratories for Mathematical Statistics: Emphasizing
Simulation and Computer Intensive Methods,ASA/SIAM Book Series in Computational Science
and Engineering, Philadelphia, PA.
(3) Maple, Maplesoft, URL: http://www.maplesoft.com
(4) SAS, URL: http://www.sas.com/
(5) VB.NET, Visual Basic, URL: http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/
(6) Auer, J., W., Jenkyns, T., A., Laywine, C., F., Mayberry, J., P., and Muller, E., R., (1982):
Motivating non-mathematics majors through discipline-oriented problems and individualized data
for each student. Int. J. Math. Educ.Sci. Technol., 13, 221.
(7) Muller, E., R., (1991): Symbolic mathematics and statistics software use in calculus and statistics
education ZDM 91/5 (1991), 192.
(8) Brock Teaching (2001): URL : http://www.brocku.ca/ctl/pdf/Brock_Teaching_1.pdf
(9) Mathematica, Wolfram Research, URL: http://www.wolfram.com/
(10) Minitab, URL: http://www.minitab.com/
(11) Ralph, B., Pead, D., with Muller, E., (to appear) Uses of technology in mathematical modelling in
Applications and Modelling in Mathematics Education, Blum W. (Ed.), Kluwer Academic
Publishers
(12) Ralph, B, (1999): Journey Through Calculus, Brookes/Cole
(13) URL: http://www.brocku.ca/mathematics/resources/learningtools/learningobjects/index.php
(14) URL: http://www.brocku.ca/mathematics/resources/icmistudy17/index.php
(15) C++, URL: http://www.cplusplus.com/
(16) Geometers SketchPad, URL: http://www.keypress.com/sketchpad/
(17) JAVA, URL: http://java.net/
8
On the role and aim of digital technologies for mathematical learning:
experiences and reflections derived from the implementation of computational
technologies in Mexican mathematics classrooms
Sonia Ursini & Ana Isabel Sacristn

Cinvestav, Mexico
soniaul2002@yahoo.com.mx, asacrist@cinvestav.mx
In this paper we reflect, based on the Mexican experience of massive implementation

of digital technologies in real-world mathematics classrooms, on the role and aim
of these tools for mathematical learning. The experience in our country has yielded
inconsistent results and the main aim of improved mathematical learning appears to
not have been achieved. There have been some positive results (e.g. students better
attitudes and increase of enthusiasm, of motivation, of class participation; the
possibility of formulating and proving conjectures and of analysing particular cases
that can lead to generalizations) but many factors not present in laboratory settings
come into play (from teachers abilities to administrative difficulties), when
attempting a massive implementation such as this one, out in the real world.
Furthermore, the experience has led us to readdress certain questions: a) What is it
that students are learning when using new technological tools?; b) What kind of
mathematics skills are they actually developing; c) What mathematics do we actually
want students to learn with these technologies?; d) Can we put together the learning
that does or can take place with the use of these tools, with the learning of what we
usually consider as formal basic mathematical knowledge?
For decades, many research studies have investigated the various possibilities that
new technologies could offer for improving the teaching and learning of mathematics
at different levels (e.g. Balacheff & Kaput, 1996; Hoyles & Sutherland, 1989; Dettori
et al., 2001; Mariotti, 2005). These have implied that there are certain ways of using
technology that can help students in their learning of mathematics. For example,
(although it is not our purpose in this paper to synthesize all the available findings)
among the possible results are that:
Technological tools may offer students a means: to learn to formulate and test
hypotheses; to create and experiment with mathematic models; to work within
different representational registers; to develop problem-solving abilities (all of
which can lead to a better understanding of mathematical concepts).
Technology can also provide immediate (non-personal) feedback that allows
students to discover their mistakes, analyse them and correct them; in this way,
errors become a means to assist learning.
The tendency to work on routine problems in an algorithmic way decreases, while
students can focus more on problem-solving activities. Thus, with technology,
school mathematics can cease to be a simple mechanisation of procedures and
instead become a space for reflection and development of concepts.
1
These encouraging results, derived from serious research in different parts of the
world, in experimental settings of various carefully designed computational
environments, seemed to be enough guarantee to insure that an adequate use of
technology for assisting the teaching of mathematics, could produce satisfactory
results and help improve students learning, in a large-scale implementation. As we
will discuss in this paper, the step from laboratory setting to a large-scale
implementation is far from being straightforward.
On the other hand, the positive results from the use of technological tools in
experimental settings have led, first, to an over generalisation of their possible
benefits that has spawn campaigns1 promoting the use of digital technologies in
classrooms without consideration of the pedagogical design, akin to what happened
to the Logo programming language when Paperts (1980) Mindstorms book came out
and many schools took up Logo without taking into account what to do with it.
Second, and perhaps more worryingly, now there seems to be a tendency of replacing
formal mathematics with tool-based approaches that seek to make mathematics more
accessible, but where the real mathematics is hidden from the user and thus may only
develop a superficial mathematics understanding. In the following sections, we begin
by recapitulating the Mexican experience of large-scale implementations of digital
technologies in classroom, and end with a reflection on the results, difficulties and a
more general concern of the tendencies for the use of those technologies in schools.
The Mexican experience

In Mexico, since the 1980s, the Mathematics Education community has been
developing research on the use of computational and other new technologies in
education and the Mexican government has tried to address this issue. In 1989, a
government initiative called MicroSep shipped specially-built computers to schools,
pre-loaded with different tutorials, Basic, Logo, etc. The problem was that it was a
very nave initiative: no training was given to teachers and it was an era when
teachers feared computers enormously, both in how to use them but also in that the
machine would eventually replace the human teacher. The outcome of the MicroSep
experience was that most computers remained unused and the project was a failure
(with the consequence that some of the software that came with the machines was
also considered a failure, such as Logo). In the subsequent years, there were smaller
initiatives to introduce computers to schools, all without much success.
In 1997, the Mexican Ministry of Education began sponsoring a, still-ongoing today,
national project called EMAT (Teaching Mathematics with Technology), that has
been led by a group of researchers in Mathematics Education, and which aimed at
incorporating computational technologies to the mathematical curriculum of
secondary schools (children aged 12 to 15 years old). Specifically, the EMAT project
aims at promoting the use of new technologies using a constructionist approach to
enrich and improve the current teaching and learning of mathematics. A study carried
out in Mexico and England (Rojano et al., 1996) involving mathematical practices in
1
Currently, in Mexico, there is a large government-sponsored campaign, that includes many advertisements in radio
and television, claiming that computers (without any reference to the way they are used) improve childrens learning.
2
the Science classes, revealed that in Mexico few students are able to close the gap
between the formal treatment of the curricular topics and their possible applications.
This suggested that it is necessary to replace or complement the traditional formal
approach, with a "bottom-up" approach capable of fostering the students' explorative,
manipulative and communication skills. Some of the fundamental ideas
characterising the project, as described in the official documents (Ursini & Rojano,
2000), are the following:
A use of computer software or technological tools (e.g. calculators) that
a) makes it possible to deal with mathematical concepts in a phenomenological
way;
b) provides objects or representations of (mathematical) objects that can be
directly manipulated;
c) is related with a specific area of school mathematics (arithmetic, algebra,
geometry, probability, etc.)
Specializes the users of the technology (teachers and students) in one or more
pieces of software and/or tools so they become proficient in its use and are able to
apply it for the teaching and learning of specific curricular topics.
Puts into practice a collaborative model of learning: students work in pairs with
one computer, thus promoting discussions and the exchange of ideas.
Incorporates a pedagogical model where the teacher's role is that of promoting the
exchange of ideas and collective discussion; at the same time, acting as mediator
between the students and the technological tools (the computational environment),
aiding the students in their work with the class activities and sharing with them the
same expressive medium (tool).
The first phase of the EMAT project began in 1997 with a pilot phase during which
the technology-based educational models were put to trial in secondary schools using
relevant results from previous computer-based educational studies carried out in
different countries. The project was designed with utmost care drawing from the
expertise of the international and national scientific advisors, and was set up in stages
so that adequate assessment and corrections in the implementation could be made
before massive expansion. The stages of the project were also meant to allow for an
adequate training of human resources, which is perhaps where the most emphasis in
the development of the project should be placed. Nearly 90 teachers and 10000
students at the secondary school level participated in the project in the first three
years. Since 2000, hundreds of schools across the country have incorporated the
EMAT materials into their programmes, and we have discovered that many more are
doing so in an unofficial way. Recently, a curriculum reform aims to officially
incorporate technological tools into math and science education.
A main criterion for the choice of the software and tools used in the project (Ursini &
Rojano, 2000) was to have open tools; that is, where the user can be in control and
has the power of deciding how to use the software. This allows for the construction of
learning environments where students are able to decide on how to proceed, as
opposed to other types of computer software that direct the student and the activity.
3
These open tools have to be flexible enough so that they can be used with different
didactical objectives, such as those of the activities designed for the project. The
technological tools and software used during the pilot phase were Spreadsheets
(Excel), Cabri-Gomtre, SimcCalc-MathWorlds, Stella, the TI-92 algebraic
calculator, and the Logo programming language, all aiming at covering curricular
topics such as arithmetic, pre-algebra, algebra, geometry, variation and modelling.
For each tool, activities and worksheets were developed by national experts, in
collaboration with external international advisors. The calculators and the
spreadsheets, and later the Logo programming activities, were easily incorporated.
Cabri-Gomtre has also been well received, despite some difficulties due in part to
the lack of preparation of teachers in the area of Geometry as well as licence
problems. These tools have continued to be incorporated in the expansion phase of
the project, but Simcalc and Stella were dropped because it was hard to fit these tools
into the curriculum without more teacher-training that was hard to achieve due to
administrative reasons.
Some results from the EMAT project and the problem of large-scale
implementations
The pilot phase of EMAT, despite some difficulties had a positive impact (see
Sacristn & Ursini, 2001). That phase was groundbreaking in changing the role of the
teacher and the traditional passive attitude of children. It created an irreversible
change allowing for technologies to be incorporated into the Mexican school culture,
hopefully in an adequate way.
On the other hand, what became apparent since that pilot phase is that factors not
present in laboratory settings come into play, when implementing a project such as
this one, out in the real world. The more outstanding issues have been: lack of
adequate mathematical preparation on the part of the teachers; lack of experience
working with technology by both teachers and students; difficulties in adapting to the
proposed pedagogical model; teachers lack of free time to prepare anything outside
the established curriculum (all of these factors have contributed in making the
activities much more directed than originally planned); lack of adequate follow-up
teacher training and support because of administrative issues; many other bureaucratic
difficulties; and lack of communication between the different levels of authorities.
Since the year 2001, we have tried to assess through different studies whether there
have been improvements in the mathematical learning of the children using the
technological tools. We have not been too surprised to find inconsistent results. One
study (Sacristn, 2005), has correlated students results in multiple-choice
mathematics tests, with teachers performance (e.g. understanding and employ of the
proposed pedagogical model and of the materials) as well as teachers attitudes
towards the technological tools. Putting it bluntly, good teachers achieve good
results: they are able to take advantage of the technological tools and their students
benefit from those experiences; but less experienced, poorly trained teachers, or
simply teachers who dislike the technological tools, do not do so well. In the EMAT
proposed pedagogical model, the role of the teacher is considered very important, as
4
it is she/he who has the job of making students aware of the mathematics they are
exploring with the tools (otherwise the knowledge constructed remains situated
within the technological context); as Clements (2002, p.165) put it: children do not
appreciate the mathematics in Logo [or technology-based] work unless teachers help
them see the work mathematically; but one thing is the theory and another the
practice
By and large from several studies that have used mathematics tests to compare
EMAT students (i.e. students who are using computational tools) with non-EMAT
students the tested large populations of students who have been using the
technology-based tools have NOT shown much benefit, if any, from that use, some
groups even do slightly worse (Ursini et al., 2005).
We are aware that many factors come into play: not only the teachers role, but also
the amount of use of the tools (which we have detected is also very inconsistent), and
most likely, many other factors; on the other hand, the benefit of the use of the tools is
perhaps not so much in the development of specific knowledge-content but in the
development of mathematical abilities that the instruments used in the studies
described above do not measure.
But the crux of the problem is this: the EMAT programme was designed to improve
the learning of curriculum-based mathematics. Yet, in curriculum mathematics tests,
the use of the tools doesnt show benefits when the populations tested are part of
large-scale implementations were many factors are beyond the control of the Project
designers or main instructors. This leads us to ask ourselves the following questions,
some of which we discuss in the next section: a) What is it that children are learning
when using these tools?; b) What kind of mathematics skills are they actually
developing; c) What mathematics do we actually want children to learn with these
technologies?; d) Can we put together the learning that does or can take place with the
use of the technological tools, with the learning of what we usually consider as classic
basic mathematics?
We must, however, also give the positive results of the EMAT experience. In general,
the use of the computational tools has had a very strong positive impact on childrens
attitudes towards mathematics. A study developed with 24 teachers and 1113 students
(Ursini et al., 2004) shows that there is a clear increase in their enthusiasm and
motivation; and although the impact is different for girls and for boys, the behavioral
changes observed seem to lead to more gender equity.
Another positive results is the changes in classroom dynamics that have modified the
traditionally passive attitudes of children and empowered them, giving them a status
almost equal (and sometimes even higher than the teacher) when involved in
mathematical explorations with the tools.
What is it all about? Some reflections and words of warning
We would like here to go a bit beyond the EMAT experience and reflect on some of
the questions we posed before, as well as raise others:
First, what mathematics do we actually want children to learn with these
technologies? If we want children to learn classical school mathematics, it is not so
5
straightforward because, as some evidence shows, it doesnt always work. The failure
could be attributed to an approach of simply adding technology to teach the same
mathematics; but projects such as EMAT have tried NOT to do that, but to actually
introduce technology as a means to explore mathematical ideas and concepts and
enrich the current curriculum. But they still dont work. If we want something else
from the use of the technological tools, then that is what needs to be made explicit
and evaluated. Introducing technologies to enrich an actual curriculum out in the
real world, no matter how well thought out the implementation may be, is perhaps a
contradiction. The use of new technologies seems to require making fundamental
changes in the theoretical and pedagogical conception of the curricular structure and
contents.
What is it that children are actually learning when using these new technological
tools?
Outside experimental approaches, there are hardly any large-scale implementation
studies or even theoretical research approaches for doing so (in great part due to the
difficulties in evaluating such massive results of the kind of new knowledge that is
being generated) that can give us data on what students actually learn in technology-
assisted environments. In Mexico, we are attempting to do this kind of large-scale
research for the EMAT programme, as discussed earlier in this paper. Some of the
initial results that we can report can be useful but also depend on many factors. First,
we can say that what is learned is extremely dependent on the specific technological
tool being used, how the implementation is conceived, the mathematical knowledge
of the teacher and his/her ability to link and make explicit the knowledge developed
and situated within the technological environment, and formal mathematics.
Nevertheless, we do know that the use of technological tools does develop
motivation, a more positive attitude towards mathematics, an increase in student
participation, in student abilities to defend their ideas; that the technology-based
environments allow students to generate and test conjectures and to go from the
particular to the general.
Therefore, if what students are learning is to develop certain abilities, then the use
and implementation of the technological tools should not be conceived as an aid to
improve current mathematics learning, but simply to develop those abilities that
underlie mathematical knowledge. In fact, that is what a tool like the (classic) Logo
programming language does.
But, where are we going?
We would like to address several tendencies in the use and implementations of digital
technologies for mathematics education that worry us. First, there is the idea that with
technological tools, mathematics can be made more accessible through new
infrastructures for the great majority. For example, there is a tendency to present
students to representations of (often advanced) mathematical ideas, sometimes called
by many microworlds though contradicting Paperts vision of that term (since in
this case the user doesnt create: s/he only explores) but that we would simply call
models or interactive software structures (such as applets or other closed
structures over more open platforms). This tendency is further encouraged as officials
6
and educators try to accommodate to the fast changing pace of technologies. The aim
of these structures is for students to explore ideas that may be too difficult for them if
presented in purely mathematical terms; the problem is that more and more often the
actual mathematical concepts that create those models are not transparent or open for
the user to see. While these tools may be useful for building intuitions, it is very
questionable as to what actual mathematical knowledge students can derive or
understand. Thus, while we may be thinking that we are making hard mathematics
accessible to all, what we may really be doing is training people to use tools blindly
while the mathematical design is not accessible. Even in EMAT, that had as
theoretical guideline the use of open tools for students to create and explore, we find
many activities that follow the above tendency. The problem with the above tendency
is: who will finally benefit from this? It seems to us that deeper formal mathematics
knowledge is in jeopardy of being reserved for a small elite. Some would argue that a
new mathematical paradigm, based on the new infrastructures, may emerge; but even
in that case we are in danger of creating elites of those with access to the
technological tools and leaving out large sectors of the population that do not have
access to those tools.
Related to the use of these models or structures, we are also worried about the
tendency to rely only on the point-and-click method and the use of icons. Fifteen
years ago, many in the mathematics education community called for the
incorporation of more visual elements into mathematics teaching to complement the
dominating algebraic/symbolic approach of mathematics, and researched how the use
of digital tools could help in this endeavour. Today, some of us are worried that the
use of symbolic and algebraic expressions is taking a back step in favour of easier,
but perhaps less formal, forms of expression. The main question rises again: what
will be the consequences of doing this and who will finally benefit from it?
Finally, another tendency is to want to use state-of-the-art technological tools:
always the latest, fastest, most advanced, etc This doesnt allow for creating a
stable use of a technology; furthermore research of any particular technology thus
soon becomes obsolete, so with this tendency, whatever is being used is relatively
untested (except perhaps for general implementation philosophies). True, we should
acknowledge and research new tools, but this shouldnt imply abandoning
technologies that have proven to have the potential to be beneficial.
So, why are we actually teaching mathematics and what happens to formal
mathematics?
New technologies should always serve the learning and teaching of mathematics and
not the other way around. Let us not forget that there is some basic mathematical
knowledge that children should still learn. After all, mathematics is part of culture
and not only a tool for solving problems. We thus would warn against loosing sight
that what we want is for students to learn mathematics and not just that kind of
implicit mathematics that may remain situated within a technological context. What,
of course would be ideal is to make a use of the technologies that could allow to
make the formal mathematics (e.g. algebra) accessible for all. Is this possible? How
should we use the technology to reach this goal?
7
What Seymour Papert and his colleagues had in mind when they developed the Logo
programming language, had this potential as there was an emphasis on symbolic
descriptions that were truly mathematical. We would like to end by reflecting on this
valuable tool.
Logo has probably been researched perhaps more than any other and proven its
benefits under appropriate conditions. Yet, we believe the potential of this tool was
never adequately developed and now, sadly, in many places, particularly in the
Western world, Logo has been abandoned because it is considered old or even
obsolete, and has been replaced by other tools. But what Logo provides is not as
easily found in other tools: to begin with it provides an invaluable tool for symbolic
expression and for symbolically describing geometric figures. The benefits of Logo
are well-known and it is not our intent to review them here. What we do want to
claim, is that Logo even when we refer to what we call classic Logo and not
second generation Logo-based environments is far from obsolete and is still an
invaluable tool. Classic Logo activities were incorporated in the fourth year of the
EMAT project. Most students who have used Logo in EMAT, claim it is their
favourite tool; furthermore, there are instances where the use of the other tools has
been enriched by the Logo experience: children demand a different use of
Spreadsheets or Cabri, where they feel they can program these tools, like they do in
Logo; they begin using the tools more according to their own needs and projects,
rather than simply following preset activities. All of this from a tool that many
consider outdated. The purpose of this reflection on Logo is a call to attention to look
back on the valuable pedagogical lessons that we learned from that tool and that we
can still learn, in particular in terms of a use of technologies that fosters the
development of true mathematical knowledge.
Summary
We have attempted, in this paper, to reflect, based on the Mexican experience of
massive implementation of digital technologies in real-world mathematics
classrooms, on the role and aim of technological tools for mathematical learning. The
experience in our country has yielded inconsistent results leading to the necessity of
making a deeper reflection of some questions. We have considered some of these
here, but our main aim is to provoke reflection for further discussion during the study
conference.
References
Balacheff, N. and Kaput, J. (1996). Computer-based Learning Environments in
Mathematics. En Bishop, A.J. et al. (Eds.) International handbook of mathematics
education, Kluwer, p 469-501.
Clements, D. H. (2002). Computers in Early Childhood Mathematics. Contemporary
Issues in Early Childhood, 3 (No 2): 160-181.
8
Dettori, G., Garuti, R. and Lemut, E. (2001). From Arithmetic to Algebraic Thinking
by using a Spreadsheet. In Sutherland R., Rojano T., Bell A. y Lins R. (Eds),
Perspectives on School Algebra, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 191-207.
Hoyles, C. and Sutherland, R. (1989). Logo Mathematics in the Classroom. London:
Routledge.
Mariotti, M.A. (2005). New artefacts and Mathematical meanings in the classroom.
En Olivero, F. & Sutherland, R. (Eds.) Visions of Mathematics Education:
Embedding Technology in Learning, Proceedings of ICTMT7, Bristol, UK p. 2-11.
Papert, S. (1980) Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York:
Basic Books
Rojano T, Sutherland R, Ursini S, Molyneux S, & Jinich E (1996). Ways of solving
algebra problems: The influence of school culture. In Proceedings of the Twentieth
Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education, Valencia, Spain, 4, 219-226.
Sacristn, A.I. & Ursini, S. (2001) Incorporating New Technologies to the Mexican
School Culture: The EMAT Project and its Logo Extension. In Futschek (ed)
Eurologo 2001: A Turtle Odyssey (Proceedings 8th European Logo Conference,
Linz, Austria, 2001). Vienna: sterreichische Computer Gesellschaft.
Sacristn, A.I.,(2005). Teachers Difficulties in Adapting to the Use of New
Technologies in Mathematics Classrooms and the Influence on Students Learning
and attitudes. In Lloyd, G. M., Wilkins, J.L., & Behm, S.L. (Eds.) Proceedings of
the 27th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of The International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education en PME-NA XXVII. (CD-
ROM). Roanoke, Virginia. Electronic Publication. (Available at
http://convention2.allacademic.com/index.php?cmd=pmena_guest )
Ursini S., Sanchez G. and Santos D. (2005). Actitudes hacia y desempeo en
matemticas de alumnos de 1 de secundaria: diferencias por sexo y gnero. 3
Reunin Nacional de Investigacin en Educacin Bsica, SEP/SEB-CONACYT
2003. Project number 22 sponsored by Fondos Sectoriales SEP/SEBYN-
CONACYT, Tuxtla Gutierrez, Mxico.
Ursini S., Sanchez G., Orendain M. and Butto C. (2004). El uso de la tecnologa en el
aula de matemticas: diferencias de gnero desde la perspectiva de los docentes.
Enseanza de las Ciencias, 22(3), 409-424; Barcelona, Espaa.
Ursini, S. and Rojano, T. (2000). Gua para Integrar los Talleres de Capacitacin
EMAT. Mexico: SEP-ILCE.
9
Changing mathematical "Vorstellungen" by the use of digital technologies
Hartwig Meissner,
Univ. of Muenster, Germany
meissne@math.uni-muenster.de
The paper will reflect the process of learning and understanding mathematics when
working with calculators or computers. How do we succeed in developing powerful
mental representations, which in German we call Vorstellungen? We distinguish
two types of Vorstellungen, but the traditional kind of teaching mathematics gives
strong emphasis only to one of them, to a reflective, logical and analytical thinking.
Most teachers or students or even researchers in mathematics often are unaware of
their spontaneous and intuitive Vorstellungen.
But only the interaction of both types, the interference of reflective Vorstellungen
with intuitive Vorstellungen, develops powerful mental concepts, procepts, frames,
micro worlds, The use of calculators or computers seems to further this
development. Working with a computer we often see a typical guess and test
behavior or trials to discover properties or repeating similar key stroke sequences just
to make sure
We regard this mainly unconscious behavior as a vehicle to further the development
of intuitive Vorstellungen and we designed a special teaching method which we
called One-Way-Principle (abbr. OWP). The OWP is an intermediate step to
discover in a set of examples intuitively common properties to move on then to
generalize these observations algebraically. Examples will be given.
Cognitive Aspects
Studying the Discussion Document for the ICMI STUDY 17, I appreciate very
much the broad, deep and balanced discussion of the topic field. In this paper I will
concentrate on cognitive aspects related to the use of digital technologies. The
comments basically will discuss aspects of theme 2 "Learning and assessing
mathematics with and through digital technologies". But also aspects related to the
themes "Mathematical practices in the class room" ,"Teachers and teaching" and
"Design of learning environments" will be touched.
In our research group in Muenster we think the final version of the ICMI
STUDY 17 document should reflect in some detail also psychological aspects related
to the use of teaching and learning mathematics when using digital technologies.
What do we know about advanced mathematical thinking (TALL, VINNER)? Does the
use of technology further the development of procepts (GRAY, TALL e.a.) or enhance
processes of encapsulation (DUBINSKI)? Being confronted with challenging software,
which is the role of reification (SFARD)?
The document also should include investigations on the interaction processes
between the external representations of a problem, which we call Darstellungen46
and the related internal mental images or cognitive structures of the problem solvers,
which we call Vorstellungen47 (MEISSNER 2002). The following picture gives a
survey. For a possible scenario of interactions between Darstellungen and
Vorstellungen see page 3 (example decimal grid).
mathematical
Darstellungen Vorstellungen
concepts
(external (internal
a 2 b2
a+b
a fraction is
Two types of Vorstellungen

"Vorstellungen" are like Subjective Domains of Experiences (in German
"Subjektive Erfahrungsbereiche", BAUERSFELD 1983), they are personal and
individual. The goal of mathematics education is to develop mathematical
46
We call external representations of mathematical ideas Darstellungen. Darstellungen we can
read, or see, or hear, or feel, or manipulate, ... These external representations or Darstellungen can
be objects, manipulatives, activities, videos, pictures on the screen, graphs, figures, symbols, tags,
words, written or spoken language, gestures, ... In such a Darstellung the mathematical idea or
example or concept or structure is hidden or encoded. There is no one-to-one-correspondence
between a mathematical idea, concept, etc. and a Darstellung.
47
Human beings are able to "associate" with these objects, activities, pictures, graphs, or symbols a
meaning. That means each Darstellung evokes a personal internal image, a Vorstellung (cf.
concept image, TALL & VINNER). Thus Vorstellung is a personal internal representation, which can
be modified. Or the learner develops a new Vorstellung. A Vorstellung in this sense is similar to a
cognitive net, a frame, a script or a micro world. That means the same Darstellung may be
associated with many individual different internal representations, images. Each learner has his/her
own Vorstellung. And again here, there is no one-to-one-correspondence between a Darstellung
and a Vorstellung.
"Vorstellungen" which are extensive and effective, which are rich and flexible. We
distinguish two kinds of "Vorstellungen", which we will call intuitive Vorstellungen
and reflective Vorstellungen. Thus we refer to a polarity in thinking which already
was discussed before by many other authors48.
Reflective Vorstellungen may be regarded as an internal mental copy of a net
of knowledge, abilities, and skills, a net of facts, relations, properties, etc. where we
have a conscious access to. Reflective Vorstellungen mainly are the result of a
teaching. The development of "reflective Vorstellungen" certainly is in the center of
mathematics education. Here a formal, logical, deterministic, and analytical thinking
is the goal. To reflect and to make conscious are the important activities. We more or
less do not realize or even ignore or suppress intuitive or spontaneous ideas. A
traditional mathematics education does not emphasize unconsciously produced
feelings or reactions. In mathematics education there is not much space for informal
pre-reflections, for an only general or global or overall view, or for
uncontrolled spontaneous activities. Guess and test or trial and error are not
considered to be a valuable mathematical behavior. But all these components are
necessary to develop spontaneous Vorstellungen. And these spontaneous
Vorstellungen mainly develop unconsciously or intuitively.
Both types of Vorstellungen together form individual Subjective Domains of
Experiences (SDE). For a well developed and powerful SDE both is essential, a
sound and mainly intuitive common-sense and a conscious knowledge of rules and
facts. Both aspects belong together like the two sides of a coin. And whenever
necessary the individual must be able, often unconsciously, to jump from the one side
to the other. Along the following example the reader may realize this situation.
Example Decimal Grid
Select a path from A to B (see grid on the next page). Change the direction at
each crossing. Multiply (with a calculator) the numbers of each step you go. Mark
each path in one of the small grids. Find the path with the smallest product. You have
4 trials. (Worksheet for each child (age > 10), first individual work, then discussion
of the results)
At a first glance, the problem is easy, children start immediately ("reflectively"):
(1) Find the shortest path (minimum of steps) or
(2) Select at each corner the smallest factor
But then ("intuitively")
(3) Perhaps there are better rules than (1) and (2)
48
BRUNER discusses analytic vs. intuitive thinking. VYGOTZKI talks about spontaneous and
scientific concepts. GINSBURG compares informal work and written work. STRAUSS discusses a
common sense knowledge vs. a cultural knowledge. He especially has pointed out that these two
types of knowledge are quite different by nature, that they develop quite differently, and that
sometimes they interfere and conflict (U-shaped behavior).
(4) Let us try just another path to find out
And after some trials suddenly cognitive jumps (SDEs get changed):
Multiplication not always makes bigger
More factors may give a smaller product
Running in a circle forth and forth (i.e. 0.3 x 0.8 x 0.6 x )
infinite path ( intuitive concept of limit)
And finally at the end: The smallest number will be ZERO! And even one step
more: ZERO on the number line? Or ZERO on the calculator display?
Summarizing, we distinguish two types of internalizing our experiences from

interacting with "Darstellungen". On the one hand we develop conscious reflective
Vorstellungen and on the other hand we create (mainly intuitively) spontaneous
Vorstellungen. Both types together create or modify an individual Subjective
Domain of Experiences in which this situation is imbedded then.
Reflecting the Role of Digital Technologies

As already mentioned, the emphasis of the traditional mathematics teaching
obviously lies on the development of powerful and conscious reflective
Vorstellungen. Overemphasizing the algorithmic and procedural approach we must
face the danger that our children get trained in skills but not in getting enough
insight. This is true for the four basic operations as well as for using sophisticated
CAS programs or others. "The importance of the ability to serve as a poor imitation
of a $4.95 calculator is rapidly declining" (KAPUT).
Despite the existence of digital technologies we still observe a lack of chances for the
learner to create their own ideas, to develop or to verify or falsify their own
assumptions, to invent theories and to apply them, or to explore facts or properties or
relations in given situations. The chance to develop intuitive Vorstellungen is limited.
The One-Way-Principle
In this situation we designed a special teaching method that we called One-
Way-Principle. To explain the method we will start with a few examples. In the first
and second we train number sense, in the third percentage feeling and, in the last two
examples, function sense.
Hit the Target
Hit the Target is a calculator game which furthers an
intuitive understanding of multiplicative structures: An n
interval [A,B] is given and a number n. Find a second
x [A,B]
number x so that the product of n and x is within the
interval. Our more than 1000 guess-and-test protocols show that the students after a
certain training develop excellent estimation skills (guessing the starting number) and
a very good proportional feeling (very often less than three guesses to find a correct
solution).
Big Zero and Big One
In the calculator game "Big Zero" we hide a subtraction operator and ask "Which is
the input for getting 0 in the display? In the game "Big One" we hide a division
operator and ask "Which is the input for getting 1 in the display? Discovering these
hidden operators by guess-and-test develops an intuitive understanding of additive
respectively multiplicative structures. Playing these games we observe after some
training excellent approximation skills.
Teaching Percentages
There are calculators that work syntactically like we speak in our daily life.
635 + 13 % = ... needs the following key stroke sequence:
6 3 5 + 1 3 % =
We taught percentages with the percent key, without using formulae or reverse
functions or algebraic transformations of formulae. If necessary the missing values
had to be guessed and verified by pressing always the same key stroke sequence from
above. The students became excellent in guessing each
value and they developed an astonishing %-feeling.
We administered the same test
with 6 problems in our experimental group (white
bars, N 250) and in a control group with the
traditional reflective approach (N 500, dark bars).
The results are shown in the graph below.
Functions
Use your plotter software to find via guess and test an algebraic term to plot the
following graph. (Graphs given on a work sheet)
Trigonometric Functions
Use the calculator to find via guess and test at least three different values for x in sin
x = 0.2, tan x = -0.2, cos x = 0.5, sin x = 1.5, tan x = 2.5, cos x = 1, tan x = 4.
The idea of the One-Way-Principle
(OWP) is to solve with calculators or Invent your own problem:
computers a package of related problems
always with the same key stroke
sequence, independent of which variables
are given and which are wanted. That ? [ , ]
means there is only one way to solve all
problems. Either we work syntactically
just pressing the buttons along the once input display
given sequence or, instead of applying
algebraic transformations or using
different formulae, we work semantically
by guessing and testing, still using the
same sequence of buttons.
Via the semantic guess and test the
user usually develops unconsciously a
feeling for the global entity of input,
function and output", see table on the
right. The shadowed ? may be an
operator (examples 4.1 or 4.2) or a
function (examples 4.3 or 4.5) or a
software (example 4.4).
And of course we must work with intervals because the quality of a good estimation
depends on the size of related intervals.
Working along the OWP method is similar to the working with simulation
software (to learn car driving or flying an airplane, etc.). In mathematics education
the OWP is an intermediate step between simple examples and algebraic
generalizations. The OWP is a method to develop intuitive and spontaneous Vor-
stellungen about the relations between and about the order of magnitude of the many
variables of a mathematical concept before we start with introducing reflective
Vorstellungen with formulae or functions and reverse functions and algebraic
transformations.
Research Results
Our research group, TIM (Taschenrechner Im Mathematikunterricht), have
worked with calculators for more than 25 years (and with computers more than 18
years). Our goal is to develop ideas on how to integrate the new technologies into the
existing mathematics education on the base of empirical findings. A main
investigation was done by LANGE (1984). She trained mental arithmetic and number
sense in a primary school project (age ~ 9) where the calculators were on the table of
the students all the time. In the post-test she found that the subjects did significantly
better in mental arithmetic than the students of a control group.
Almost 20 years later we repeated an international inquiry about the use of
calculators in primary schools. The feed back from about 25 countries was
disappointing. In almost all of the countries the use of calculators in primary schools
just was not allowed. Thus we started a new project by the help of our teacher pre-
service students and many teachers (8 schools, 186 students, age ~ 9). Title and goal
of the project: Use the calculator to become independent from it. The results were
similar those in LANGEs project, details see MEISSNER (2006).
A systematic application of the OWP also was administered in our percentage
projects (see 4.3) and in the dissertation from MUELLER-PHILIPP (1994). She
concentrated on linear and quadratic functions. Her students succeeded impressively
in building up intuitive Vorstellungen between the gestalt of a graph and the related
algebraic term.
In case studies we also used the OWP to teach the topics Interest, Compound
Interest, Growth and Decay, and others. Our observations showed that the
students were working very concentrated with quite different strategies. Very often
they got an unconscious feeling about the new concept before they could explain
their discoveries or their good guesses. Thus we urged them to write down protocols
from their guess and test work because these protocols are excellent Darstellungen
from their Vorstellungen. By reflecting the protocols also unconscious Vorstellungen
may become conscious.
When guessing and testing became boring the students themselves started
asking for more efficient solution procedures. Then we could introduce reverse
functions and algebraic transformations. And when they got lost in the algebraic
approach, they could go back to their guess-and-test procedures and to their intuitive
Vorstellungen.
Important, in all our investigations the students got a conscious or unconscious
feeling for the mathematical relations and properties which also were available when
they just had to guess or to estimate, especially also in situations where a calculator
or computer was not available. In this sense the use of machines had furthered a
certain independence from these machines.
References
BAUERSFELD, H.: Subjektive Erfahrungsbereiche als Grundlage einer
Interaktionstheorie des Mathematiklernens und -lehrens. In: Lernen und Lehren
von Mathematik, Bd. 6, pp. 1-56. Aulis Verlag, Koeln, Germany 1983
DUBINSKY, E.: Towards a Theory of Learning Advanced Mathematical Concepts. In:
Abstracts of Plenary Lectures and Regular Lectures. ICME 9, Tokyo/ Makuhari,
Japan 2000
GRAY, E. M., TALL, D. O.: Duality, Ambiguity and Flexibility in Successful
Mathematical Thinking. In: Proceedings of PME-15, Vol. II, pp. 72-79. Assisi,
Italy 1991
LANGE, B.: Zahlbegriff und Zahlgefhl. Lit-Verlag, Muenster, Germany 1984
MEISSNER, H.: Einstellung, Vorstellung, and Darstellung. In: Proceedings of PME-
26, Vol. I, pp. 156-161. Norwich, UK 2002
MEISSNER, H.: Constructing mathematical concepts with calculators or computers.
In: Proceedings of CERME 3: Third Conference of the European Society for
Research in Mathematics Education. Bellaria, Italy 2003
MEISSNER, H.: Calculators in Primary Grades. In: Proceedings of CIEAEM-57, p.
281-285. Piazza Armerina Sicily, Italy 2005
MEISSNER, H.: Taschenrechner in der Grundschule. Will appear in: Mathematica
Didactica. Hildesheim, Germany 2006
MEISSNER, H., MUELLER-PHILIPP, S.: Teaching Functions. In: Proceedings of PME-
17, Vol. II, p. 89-96. Tsukuba, Japan 1993
MUELLER-PHILIPP, S.: Der Funktionsbegriff im Mathematikunterricht. Waxmann,
Muenster, New York 1994
Ruthven, K.: Constructing a calculator-aware number curriculum. The challenges of
systematic design and systematic reform. In: Proceedings of PME-23, Vol. 1,
pp. 56-74. Haifa, Israel 1999
SFARD, A.: Two conceptions of mathematical notions: operational and structural. In:
Proceedings of PME-11, Vol. III, pp. 162-169, Montral, Canada 1987
STRAUSS, S. (Ed.): U-shaped Behavioral Growth. Academic Press, New York 1982
TALL, D. O., VINNER, S.: Concept image and concept definition in mathematics, with
special reference to limits and continuity. In: Educational Studies in
Mathematics, Vol. 12, pp. 151-169, 1981
Challenging Known Transitions: Research of technology supported long-
term learning
Michal Yerushalmy
University of Haifa, Israel
michalyr@construct.haifa.ac.il
In this paper I address questions related to the implementation of curricula. I

offer a framework for research that build on the assumption that although the
uses of digital technologies offer ways to redesign curricula with an attempt to
create as smooth as possible sequence there is no a single design that can
achieve this challenge. Thus, it is important for research to study the stability of
known transitions and to explore new critical transitions. A transition is a
learning situation that is found to involve a noticeable change of point of view.
This change could become apparent as an epistemological obstacle, as a
cognitive discontinuity or a didactical gap. The implementation of new
curricula and practices in the classroom depends on the ways research would
help teachers and designers anticipate transitions. Examples of studies that
sought rational for students progress throughout analysis of curricular
decisions will be given below.
Long term learning with technology: A role for research

Technologists and educators speculate about the degree to which new
technologies will lead to replacement of current curricula with new content
(Papert, 1996; Schwartz,1999; Noss,2001). How does the use of a new
curriculum that is based upon new epistemological assumptions change our
capability to anticipate students difficulties and strengths? To start answer the
question I would introduce the term: transition. A transition is a learning
situation that is found to involve a noticeable change of point of view. This
change could become apparent as an epistemological obstacle, as a cognitive
discontinuity or a didactical gap. Transition would be identified as a necessity
in entering into a different type of discourse (in terms of the language, symbols,
tools and representations involved) or more broadly as changing "lenses" one
uses to view the concept at hand.
Obviously there are transitions in any sequence of learning. In attempting to
design a smooth as possible sequences Tall (2002) defines cognitive roots to be
the kernel of continuous cognitive sequences and argues that while cognitive
root would not always work for all students as creating cognitive continuity it
would in many cases offer a solution to some critical transitions. Technology,
when appropriately designed and used, can help to design learning
environments that may change to various degrees the assumption about
previous knowledge and the order new concepts are introduced. In designing
new technology supported sequences we would expect that some known
discontinuities disappear but others would not and very probably new gaps will
appear. Noss (2001) who is elaborating on the implications of rethinking the
mathematics learned with new technological environments is expecting that the
epistemology of the mathematics learned with technology would change our
ideas about cognitive hierarchies and the didactical attempts to construct them.
Thus, an interesting challenge for research is to question stability of known
transitions when new computational environments are introduced to the
learning and teaching, to go beyond known transitions to distinguish types of
transitions and to illuminate the nature of critical transitions in technological
based curricula. The implementation of new curricula and practices in the
classroom depends on the ways research would help teachers and designers
anticipate transitions that might be reflected in students' difficulties. In fact I
believe that the degree to which technology is likely to be essential productive
part of new curricula depend on the availability of studies that sought rational
for students progress throughout analysis of curricular decisions.
Visual Math: An example of long-term learning sequence
The Visual Math curriculum (1995) is an algebra, pre-calculus and calculus
curriculum where technology is being used to help learners develop knowledge
from their perceptions of the world and to develop conceptual understanding of
symbols. The growing research in the field of embodied cognition suggest the
idea that bodily activities are centrally involved in conceptualization of
mathematics and that important parts of Algebra and Calculus are understood
via conceptual metaphors in term of more concrete concepts (Lakoff and
Nunez, 2000). In particular the notion of continuous functions and directed
graphs are viewed as mathematical concepts developed through human motion
experience. The learning of algebra in VisualMath is preceded by semi-
qualitative modeling and an environment that allows users to construct and
model motion generated by the movement of the computers mouse supports
the introduction of modeling of motion. Another challenge of the innovative
development is rooted in the symbolic world where technology that supports
multi representations of functions allows students to develop symbolic
understanding using the feedback from graphs or table of values, generating and
viewing a rich repertoire of non-prototypic examples. In general, an important
goal of this curriculum is to help students develop strong symbolic skills and to
learn to do a variety of standard algebraic manipulations. But, the curriculum is
aimed at helping students learn to do such manipulations with an understanding
of the graphical and tabular meanings of these manipulations, as well as a sense
of the purposes for which such manipulations are useful. Such proficiency
involves moving across the various views of symbols, graphs, equations and
functions and to help students learn to shift their point of view.
We will look at how such new epistemological structures afforded by digital
technology impact the cognitive hierarchies; resolve or change the nature of
known transitions or mark new critical discontinuities in the curricula.
Known critical moments demanding new transitions
The lions share of the early parts of the Visual Math Algebra curriculum
focuses on functions of one variable and equations of one variable
conceptualized as the comparison of two functions of one variable. With this
way of thinking about equations that is now taken by a few new technological
based developments, students acquire alongside the algebraic procedures
alternative methods to solve equations. Studies report that algebra beginners
viewing an equation as a comparison of two functions, students who had not
learned procedures beyond the linear equation can solve problems for which
they have not yet been taught an algorithmic solution method with and without
use of graphic software (see for example: Huntley et al. 2000, Hershkowitz et
al. 2002).
In typical algebra instruction, solving an equation in two variables and then a
system of equations requires to shift from a non explicit form (x+y=2) to an
explicit function form: y=2-x. One then substitute and use similar solution
techniques as in a single variable case. While technique does not require
dramatic change the shift from an equation in a single variable to two variables
requires a shift in understanding the nature of the solution: from a single
definite solution to a set of solutions. For the Visual Math function approach
students the equal sign of the equation represents a symmetric comparison sign
and the function equal sign represents an a symmetric assigning sign. Thus, the
fact that simple manipulations techniques can help move from one form to the
other does not seem to be useful. Thus many would not choose this option and
would keep viewing equations as comparisons of two functions f(x,y)=g(x,y).
Taking this view the nature of the solution does not change brutally it remains
the intersection values of the intersection of the two functions. But then they
have to overcome another transition: The graphical and tabular representations
of functions of two variables must be developed in order to help students see
their connections to the ways of representing functions of one variable with
which they are familiar. Thus the transition remained critical; either one has to
develop new ideas about presentations of function in two variables or one has to
rewrite the equation in a way that violets the distinction between function and
equation. It is required to acknowledge that simple algebraic technique can
change the mathematical objects in hand: from equation in two variables to a
function in a single variable. Thus, in looking at critical known transitions we
would have to study the probable different nature of the transition in this new
domain.
The second example offers another familiar critical moment that technology
might not smooth but rather introduce a reformed transition that develops in a
different direction than in the traditional sequence.
Using technology such as simulations' software, MBL or other modeling tools
that includes dynamic forms of representations of computational processes, it is
now possible to construct graphical models without first writing symbolic
expressions with xs and ys. Several studies suggest that such emphasize on
modeling offers students means and tools to reason about differences and
variations (rate of change). Apparently, throughout the curriculums focus on
qualitative modeling, the students we will describe had developed ways of
using tools to solve complex problems that concern non-constant rate of
change. Graphs and what we will call staircases (a graphical depiction of
differences in y value for a set change in x Schwartz and Yerushalmy 1995)
emerged as models of situations, and also as models for reasoning about
mathematical concepts. Using the grammar of objects and the operations on
them, young students constructed complex mathematical models, based on
qualitative analysis of variation. Technology, like the one implemented in
Visual Math or a spreadsheet may suggest that a closed rule is no longer a more
natural way to describe a function (for related thoughts based on student
performance see Stacey and MacGregor 2000). Thus, if students become
familiar first with ideas of continuous change and finite differences, explicit
closed forms may become less natural aspect of expressing phenomenon. For
example: in Yerushalmy (2005) I describe students whose earlier experience
with ideas of differences complicated their use of explicit forms. They were
seeking help in understanding why two numerical phenomena they identified as
appropriate: the linearly increasing differences and the squaring describe the
same quadratic phenomenon. In other words: why does the solution of the
difference equation f(x+1) f(x)= ax+b is of the type: f(x)=x^2. This
complication might not have arisen if they had not had earlier support for
recursive reasoning. However, the other option, the one most sequences follow
of emphasizing explicit rules (closed forms) and then learn to describe it as
analysis of differences is problematic as well. Thus the affordances of
technology that made the recursive thinking the natural way to think about a
phenomenon and to symbolize it in a model is viewed as strength however, it
challenges thinking about teaching that can support the transition to algebraic
close rules.
A similar state of a known critical difficulty that introduce a transition although
the technological based curricular sequence has been redesigned is described by
Tall (2002) and by Schnepp (unpublished). Tall describes the strength of a
sequence that is based on visual notions of the function to explain the chain rule
(the derivative of a composite function) coming from the derivative of addition
of functions. However, Tall argues, the teaching of the product rule (derivative
of multiplication) is yet to be supported by this sequence. Schnepp points on
similar difficulty and argues that the discontinuity can be fixed if coming to the
multiplication from the composition. Thus known critical transition remains a
challenge but the use of technology turns the order of the sequence in which
this transition occurs and reforms the cognitive hierarchies developed and thus
the difficulties might arise.
Identifying new critical transition
The third example challenge what the examples above suggest as stability or partial
stability and it attempt to support the claim that such critical moments could be
mutable. I will argue that a new epistemology introduces new critical moments rather
than just changing the cognitive hierarchies as demonstrated in the first two examples.
Research suggests that mature problem solvers of word problems in algebra
devote a substantial portion of their work to representation of the problem at the
situational level. Forming the situational model is a necessary stage in
understanding the story of the problem and is a major component of model-
based reasoning. Recently Gilead (Gilead 2002) studied Visual Math students
and equations' based algebra students solving word problems. 87.3% of the 196
solutions given by the Visual Math students for problems in context included
graphical description of the situation that formed a situation model either using
a sketch (73%) or an accurate graph (14.3%). A comparative investigation of
the Visual Math students with comparable algebra students suggest that the
students who were the more successful students of a traditional algebra
sequence which focus on unknowns and stress manipulations of equations were
substantially less capable to solve the same problems that were part of their
curricular sequence as well. While 90.8% of the solutions of the Visual Math
were correct solutions only 57.2% correct solutions were given by the
equations' based approach students.
This same study that was designed to analyze the index of difficulty of algebra
word problems as related to the approach students learn algebra included a set
of problems that were hard to the Visual Math students. They succeeded to
provide 41.8% correct solutions on these problems (while the traditional algebra
students provided 51.5% correct solutions.) The harder problems were problems
that we categorized in another study (Yerushalmy & Gilead 1999) as non
canonic problems or problems that have Sketchable Situation Structure. We
define canonic problems to be Graphable: those for which the functions in the
situational structure can be uniquely described symbolically and graphically as
functions of time. In fact Gilead found that a main problem in solving
Sketchable problems is the complexity involved in formulating an equation that
represents rules describing behavior of unknowns. The following summary of
results strengthen this view: While in 70.9% of the correct solutions of canonic
problems the equations were based on coherent graphic model only in a single
correct solution of a non-canonic problem a situational model was coherent to
the equation used to solve the problem.
Function's approach to algebra that we took stressed the algebra signs and
symbols and the expressions and equations using these symbols to be a
meaningful language to express ideas. One of the ways to observe meaning is to
view equations as describing situations out of the mathematics and as graphical
models. This habit has been proved to support students learning when solving
constant rate problems. However, situations that were difficult to be described
by graphical models that can be easily mirrored in an equation were less natural
for students. Thus, while known complexities disappeared and students were
successful in solving new problems as mature problem solvers, we identified a
range of problems that were found to be complex to the function's approach
students and were not at all harder to the equation's approach students.
The study of this transition sprang of a learning experiment and in a way was
incidental. It led us to a systematical investigation of the structures of algebra
word problems that suggest new insights on epistemology of constant rate
models (Yerushalmy & Gilead 1999). It also raised a more general question
regarding strategies that could guide profound studies of curricular decisions to
support teaching and learning with new technologies.
Concluding remark
I have demonstrated the necessity to study changes of cognitive hierarchies that
involve learning with technology. Studying these changes is appropriate when
one has a chance to follow learning and teaching for a substantial period of
time, observing students strengths, identifying the resources for these
strengths, watching how the students get involved in a transition and analyzing
the reasons for the discontinuity. Although, I believe that obstacles should be
reconsidered when new tools are involved, I suggest that often transitions
between mathematical views of concepts remain complex and suspect them to
be found independent of the technology used. Computational technologies
allow us to improve the design of mathematical learning environments. In order
for research to be helpful for teaching and learning in the new context it is
important to devise and use strategies that would support systematic analysis of
critical transitions.
References
Gilead, S. (2002). Solving Algebra Word Problems: Effects of Situational
and Quantitative Models. Doctoral dissertations, Faculty of
Education. Haifa, University of Haifa (In Hebrew).
Hershkowitz, R., Dreyfus, T., Ben-Zvi, D. Freidlander, A. Hadas, N. Resnick,
T, Tabach, M. and Schwarz B. (2002) Mathematics curriculum
development for computerized environments: A designer-researcher-
teacher-learner-activity. In L. English (Ed.) Handbook of International
Research in Mathematics Education. Mahwah, New Jersey & London,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Huntley, M. A., Rasmussen, C. L., Villarubi, R. S., Sangtong, J. & J. Fey,
(2000). Effects of Standards-based mathematics education: A study of the
Core-Plus Mathematics Project Algebra and Functions strand. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, (31)3, pp. 328-361.
Lakoff G. & Nunez R.E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from. How
the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic
Books.
Noss, R. (2001). For a Learnable mathematics in the digital culture,
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48(1), 46-21.
Papert, S. (1996). An Exploration in the Space of Mathematics Education
,International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(1), 95-
123.
Schnepp, M. Teacher as Course-Level Planner. In Chazan, D. Bethell, S.,
& M. Lehman (Eds.), Embracing reason: Egalitarian ideals and
high school mathematics teaching.Unpublished manuscript.
University of Maryland.
Schwartz, J. L. (1999). Can technology help us make mathematics curriculum
intellectually stimulating and socially responsible? International Journal of
Computers for Mathematical Learning, 4, 99-119.
Schwartz, J.L. & Yerushalmy, M. (1995) On the need for a Bridging Language
for Mathematical Modeling. For the Learning of Mathematics, 15.
Stacey, K. and MacGregor, M. (2000). Curriculum Reform and Approaches to
Algebra . Prespective on School Algebra. In R. Sutherland, T. Rojano, A.
Bell and R. C. Lins. Dordrecht/Boston/London, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, pp. 141-153.
Tall, D. (2002). Continuities and Discontinuities in Long-Term Learning
Schemas. In D. Tall and M. Thomas (eds.) Intelligence, Learning and
Understanding A tribute to Richard Skemp. (pp. 151-177). PostPressed,
http://www.postpresses.com.au
Visual Math (1995) Algebra and functions, (In Hebrew) Centre for Educational
Technology, Tel-Aviv.
Yerushalmy, M. (2005) Challenging known transitions: Learning and teaching
algebra with technology. For the learning of Mathematics
Yerushalmy, M. Gilead, S. (1999) Structures of constant rate word problems: A
functional approach analysis. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39,
185-203.
The Unrealized Potential of the Internet
Mary W. Gray
American University, Washington, USA
mgray@american.edu
The role of the Internet in teaching and research has been given too little
attention in mathematics education, particularly in developing countries and
underserved segments of the population of developed countries. Those with
inadequate Internet connectivity lack access to the research of others and
experience difficulty in achieving recognition for their own work. Exchange
of ideas in their formative stage as well as the distribution of completed
writing is essential for full participation in the research community.
Similarly, use of the Internet to share experience and innovation in teaching
and to train teachers in-service and pre-service is a cost-effective means of
instituting widespread improvements, particularly with respect to increasing
access for groups such as girls, adult learners, rural or disadvantaged
populations, and the learning disabled. For the learners themselves, the
ability to acquire information via the Internet can transform their
educational experience. Although there is concern about the hegemony of
developed nations in the Internet environment, the solution is inclusiveness,
not isolation, as well as sharing within domestic culture. Although
investment will be required, new technology and focus on community-based
access will reduce the costs of providing adequate communications
infrastructure.
In spite of the focus on the use of technology in mathematics

education, there has been insufficient attention to the importance of the role
of the Internet in teaching and research, particularly with respect to access,
equity, and socio-cultural issues. In developing countries with limited
resources, to the extent that Internet connections exist, they are generally
confined to entrepreneurial enterprises, from local Internet cafes to outposts
of multinational corporations.1 Although the Internet first arose in a largely
academic context, for the most part it is only in highly developed countries
that university faculty and students, much less teachers and students in
primary and secondary schools, have extensive access.
1
This observation is based in part on the authors extensive experience in the Middle East, including pre-
and post-invasion Iraq, and to a lesser extent in Asia and Africa.
Computers are not as rare in developing countries as one might think
and even the Internet has experienced rapid superficial growth, far
surpassing already Bill Gates 1997 prediction of 500 million users by 2007.
However, educational use of the Internet is very limited outside of
developed countries.
Extensive surveys have been conducted of the dispersion of the

Internet in developing countries, including a number using a six part
paradigm: pervasiveness, geographic dispersion, connectivity infrastructure,
organizational infrastructure, sectoral absorption, and sophistication of use
(Wolcott et al, 2000). Going beyond such simple metrics as numbers of
hosts, the researchers measured dispersion of points of presence or toll-free
access, domestic and international backbone width, collaborative
arrangements and public exchanges, usage rather that just access, and
whether the usage is conventional or innovative. By all measures,
developing countries have a long way to go. Although they have not
focused in much depth on the education sector, the general finding has been
that while most universities have some Internet access, a single terminal may
serve as many as a thousand students, and while secondary schools may
have computers, they seldom have Internet access. As for primary schools,
use of computers either for educational or administrative purposes is rare in
most developing countries. However, business use, including commercial
cybercafes, has expanded greatly, showing the potential for broader
application of the technology.
This presents an obvious equity issue as between countries, but also

means that there are inequities within the countries themselvesit is the
urban, prosperous who acquire the information and skills available via the
Internet. We discuss the existing situation and propose remedies.
Research
The obvious disadvantage to those having limited access to the

Internet is that they experience difficulty in keeping up with the research of
others and in making known their own contributions. Universities and
research institutes in developing countries have few print journals available
in mathematics or mathematics education (or any other field); whereas a
typical US medical school library may subscribe to around 5000 journals,
the best university medical school library in many developing countries may
have no more than 20, if indeed it has any at all. Textbooks providing up-to-
date information are in similarly short supply. There are programs,
supplemented by pleas for assistance from particular institutions, providing
such journals, but they are not only inadequate, but misguided. Internal and
outside resources currently committed to these projects should be redirected
to securing on-line access through JSTOR and other services and databases.
The reasons to prefer online accessin addition to the fact that the cost in
the long run is likely to be lessinclude the fact that the electronic journals
can be made simultaneously available to many users, storage is not a
problem, and searching for particular topics is much easier. Moreover,
increasingly journals are published directly online.
Not only do those with inadequate Internet connectivity lack access to

the research of others, but also they may have difficulty making their own
work known. Exchange of ideas in their formative stage as well as the
distribution of completed writing is essential to full participation in the
research community. In addition, notices of conferences and other
opportunities for collaboration come to most researchers via the Internet.
Increasing amounts of information about scientific and technological
developments are now available only on the Internet. Use of the Internet can
improve resource mobilization and make it possible to carry on collaborative
research among distant sites.
Teaching
The usefulness of computers in teaching has been well recognized, but

too little emphasis has been placed on their enhanced value if there is
Internet connectivity. The amount of educational material in all fields
readily available free on the Web is huge and ever growing. True, discretion
is required in deciding what is worthwhile and what is not, but that there is
selectivity needed is not a reason for choosing not to avail oneself of the
riches waiting to be discovered.
There is justifiable fear about the hegemony of American and

European culture on the Internet and complaints about the necessity of
knowing English to acquire much of the information found there. However,
one should consider the benefits of having a language that also enables
communication among developing as well as highly developed countries
throughout the world in order to share knowledge and experiences.
Moreover, the Internet can be used to preserve and nurture ones own
language and culture through domestic exchanges online.
The benefits of using Internet resources in teaching are extensive and
varied. There are voluminous lists of web sites providing, just as an
example, up to date maps and statistics to which schools would otherwise be
unlikely to have access. No longer must students hunt for stories and
pictures of women or minority mathematicians nor must teachers seek in
inadequate libraries for the story of the development of the concept of zero.
Hieroglyphics, Mayan glyphs, Babylonian cuneiformthey are all there.
The history of mathematicsand not just from a European perspective can
be vividly incorporated into the teaching of mathematic via this application
of technology. The audience can be widened to provide more equity in
learning, but also in subject matter learned.
Interesting and relevant applications of mathematics and statistics,

tutorial help, and innovative and effective teaching techniques can be found
on the Web. In many developing countries resources are not available for
in-service training of widely dispersed teachers. Topics such as dealing with
learning disabilities are often neglected in pre-service training as well. The
ability of teachers to share their own ideas with colleagues in their own
culture is another important benefit of Internet access.
Equity
The digital divide can be within a country as well as between

countries, but this need not be. The Internet properly used has great
potential for reducing this divide, for bringing the information ageand
with it mathematics educationto rural areas, to girls and women, and to
other underserved populations.
Distance learning applications of the Internet have great potential,

especially to reach rural areas and to maximize use of scarce teaching
resources. The development of adequate material can be capital intensive,
but sharing from country to country as well as within a country can help.
Convincing those in charge of the return on initial investment is key to
establishing distance learning in terms of both hardware and teaching
material.
It should also be understood that distance learning need not be over

long distances. Particularly for part-time learners who must continue in full-
time employment, the ability to get specialized training at convenient urban
locations can be crucial to economic and social development.
Girls by no means have equal access to education in many developing
countries. For example, in sub-Sahara Africa only six of ten girls attend
primary school (compared to eight of ten boys) with the situation becoming
even more disparate beyond primary school (LaFraniere, 2005). Long
distances, lack of sanitary facilities, and sexual harassment problems can be
overcome through distance learning. Setting up Internet access points,
particularly in rural areas, can transform girls prospects for education; the
locations can also be used for adult reading and quantitative literacy
programs, especially for women with small children. Such local access
centers could also be used for teacher training.
But it is not only in developing countries that inequities need to be

addressed and where investment in Internet access for the schools could be
instrumental in doing so. Although public primary school students in some
areas in developed countries may be designing their own web sites, there are
others who have no access at all to the benefits of the Internet.
What is needed?
Distance learning has great potential, especially to reach rural areas

and to maximize use of scarce teaching resources. The development of
adequate material can be capital intensive, but sharing from country to
country as well as within a country can help. Convincing those in charge of
education that the return on initial investment can be massive is key to
establishing distance learning support of both hardware and teaching
materials.
The correlation between the number of Internet hosts and the UNDP
Human Development Index is high, which suggests that substantial
investment will be needed to increase Internet access to the point where it
can play an important role in teaching and research. Rather than focusing on
individual access, the goal should be more socially beneficial community-
based access.
Studies have shown that the major handicap in the broad use of the
Internet is deficient telecommunications infrastructure. However, the
answer is to leapfrog over, for example, the lack of landline connections. In
India a nationwide cellular network was installed without an inch of copper
wire, which might later be cut or stolen in any case, at a cost less than one-
third of a landline installation. More generally, while there are always
problems in the introduction of innovative technology, that the population in
developing countries is relatively young is a big advantage.
Instructive is the burgeoning of Internet usage in China (in spite of the

restrictive government policies that hamper the openness that should be part
of Internet use). Chinese universities decided some years ago to make
Internet connectivity a priority, with economic reforms providing the capital
for the investment needed; the primary and secondary sectors have not,
however, seen similar progress. Universities in developed countries have
also made Internet access an important goal, although, at least in the United
States, the access is uneven, depending on the institutions resources.
Essential to the Chinese experience was a prior decision to invest in
telecommunications infrastructure and human resources.
In discussing Internet-inspired development, Shirin Madon (2000)

asserts:
The establishment of a strategic infrastructure is considered critical

for developing countries where the marginal impact of improved
network communications can be very high, leading to improved
economic productivity, governance, education and quality of life,
particularly in rural areas.
However, skepticism regarding the potential of technology includes a

fear of increasing dependency on international resources in the form of
financing or technical skill. Thus an important component of technological
development must be the training of the domestic workforce. In fact the
Internet itself can play an important role in this preparation. For example,
the Village Internet Programme of the Grameem Bank (Madon, 2000)
helped to create technology-related jobs for rural poor and Cubas school
networking project (Press, 1998) stressed grassroots participation of schools
in rural areas. In the field of mathematics education, even in developed
countries, rural areas or depressed urban areas may have difficulty securing
access to qualified teachers and material. Educational authorities must be
encouraged to see investment in informational communication as a way to
help relieve inequities. Too often education budgets are a source of cuts
when savings need to be made in national budgets.
Governments need to understand their role in creating and

disseminating knowledge. Because of the worry of the dominance of
developed countries in the Internet environment, there is likely to be
resistance to the notion of substantial investment. Therefore, do it
yourself is an important concept for the development of information
technology. To limit external dependency, human resource development for
network users means concentration on training in data handling, software,
monitoring, and management, not just technical matters.
Often nations are willing to commit funds for technology for

commercial development purposes, but it makes no sense to invest in
information superhighways while cutting down on the prerequisite, solid and
adequate education for all. They must be ready to exploit the potential of the
Internet for this purpose.
References
Adam, L. 1996. Electronic communications technology and development

of Internet in Africa, Information Technology for Development, vol. 7,
133-44.
Diop, O. 1997. Impact of Electronic Communications on African
DevelopmentReport of the First Phase. Retrieved at
http://www.bellanet.org/partners/aisi/prof/studies.htm
Dutta, S. and A. Jain. 2003. The networked readiness of nations, in S.
Dutta, B. Lanvin, and F. Paula, eds., Global Information Technology
Report 2002-2003Readiness for the Networked World, World
Economic Forum. Retrieved at www.weforum.org/
Hall, P. 1996. Distance education and electronic networks, Information
Technology for Development, vol. 7.
Hargittai, E. Holes in the Net: The Internet and international
stratification. Retrieved at
http://www.isoc.org/inet98/proceedings/5d/5d_1.htm.
LaFraniere, S. 2005. Another school barrier for African girls: No toilet,
New York Times, December 23. Retrieved at
http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/23/international/africa/23ethiopia
Madon, S. 2000. The Internet and socio-economic development:
Exploring the interaction, Information Technology and People, vol.
13, no. 2, 85-101.
Meso, P. and N. Duncan. 2000. Can national information infrastructures
enhance social development in the least developed countries? An
empirical investigation, Journal of Global Information Management,
vol. 8, no. 4, 30-42.
Miller, Andr. 2002. Reaching across the Divide: The challenges of using
the Internet to bridge disparities in access to information. 8th Annual
Qualitative Methods Conference: Something for nothing. 1 May to
30 September 2002. Retrieved at http://criticalmethods.org/p125.mv.
Panos. 1998. The Internet and poverty, Panos Media Briefing, no. 28,
The Panos Institute, London.
Peha, J.M. 1999. Lessons from Haitis Internet development,
Communications of the ACM, vol. 42, no. 6, 67-72.
Press, L. 1996. The role of computer networks in development,
Communications of the ACM, vol. 39, no. 2.
Press, L. 1998. Cuban Computer Networks and Their Determinants. Santa
Monica CA: Rand.
Press, L. et al. 2003. The Internet in India and China, MIT Technologies
and International Development, vol. 1, no. 1, 41-60.
Uimonen, P. 1999. The Internet as a tool for social development.
Retrieved at http://www.isoc.org/isoc/whatis/conferences/inet/97/
proceedings/G4/G4_1.HTM
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2002. Human
Development Report. Retrieved at
www.undp.org/currentHumanDevelopmentReport_E/
Warshauer, M. 2003. Technology and Social Inclusion. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Wehn, U. 1998. Internet access for all: The obstacles and the signposts,
Development Research Insights, No. 25, Institute of Development
Studies, University of Sussex.
Wellenius, B. 1997. Extending Telecommunications Service to Rural
AreasThe Chilean Experience, Note 105, World Bank. Retrieved at
www1.worldbank.org/viewpoint/HTMLNotes/105/105wells.pdt
Wolcott, P. et al. 2001. A framework for assessing the global diffusion of
the Internet, Journal of the AIS, vol. 2, 1-50. Retrieved at
jais.isworld.org/articles/default.asp?vol.26&art.6
Gender, equity, teachers, students and technology use in secondary
mathematics classrooms
Helen J. Forgasz, Shirly Griffith, & Hazel Tan
Monash University, Australia
In recent years we have been researching a range of issues associated with the
use of digital technologies computers, graphics calculators, and CAS
calculators in secondary mathematics classrooms. Gender and other equity
considerations were a focus in some of the work; teachers and students beliefs
about and attitudes towards the technologies were also central. In all of the
studies, comparisons were made. The views of male and female students and
teachers have been examined, students and teachers views compared, the
perspectives of teachers in different countries contrasted, teachers views on
computers and calculators distinguished; and the examination results of male
and female students using different digital technologies explored. In this
proposal, synopses of various dimensions of a selection of the studies are
presented. Taken together the studies reveal that gender differences favouring
males with respect to technology use are evident, that teachers are generally
supportive of the use of digital technologies for mathematics learning, and that
curricular and school factors are associated with the classroom use of
technologies and beliefs about their efficacy in fostering student learning.
Introduction
In Victoria, Australia, technology use across the curriculum has been strongly
advocated and financially supported by government for some years. In the
curriculum document for grades P1-10, the Curriculum and Standards
Framework II [CSFII] (Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority
[VCAA], 2002), the full use of the flexibility and value for teaching and
learning programs provided by the increased application of information and
communications technology (ICT) (VCAA, 2002a) is strongly advocated. In
the Mathematics section of the CSFII, the use of a range of digital technologies
for mathematics learning is strongly supported and, by implication, assumed:
Recent developments in the availability of calculators, graphics
calculators and computer software have led to a major re-evaluation
of school mathematics curricula in terms of content and strategies for
teaching and learning mathematics. The Mathematics KLA supports
these developments, by placing clear emphasis upon the sensible use
of technology in concept development, as well as in technology-
assisted approaches to problem-solving, modelling and investigative
1
P is the grade level prior to grade 1
activities At all times, the choice of the appropriate technology and
the extent to which it is employed should be guided by the degree to
which these tools assist students to learn and do mathematics.
[VCAA, 2002b]
Grades 11 and 12 in Victoria are considered the post-compulsory levels of
schooling and involve a two-year program, the Victorian Certificate of
Education [VCE]. Grade 12 VCE results are used for selection into tertiary
institutions. At the grade 12 level, three mathematics subjects are offered and
one of the outcomes stipulated for VCE Mathematics is the effective and
appropriate use of technology to produce results which support learning
mathematics and its application in different contexts (VCAA, 2005, p.7). In
one of the three VCE mathematics subjects, Mathematical Methods, graphics
calculators have been mandated for several years. In 2003-2005, a small number
of students were involved in an pilot program, Mathematical Methods [CAS], in
which CAS were used in place of the graphics calculator. In 2006, the two
parallel versions of Mathematical Methods will be open to all students; at the
same time, the assessment program will alter in that one of the two examinations
for the subject will be calculator-free. By 2008, all students in Victoria taking
Mathematical Methods will be using CAS calculators.
The studies discussed in this proposal were all conducted in Victoria. Each
involved students and/or mathematics teachers from the secondary grades, 7-12.
One study was focussed on the use of computers, one on computers and graphics
calculators, one on graphics calculators only, and one on CAS calculators. One
of the studies also involved mathematics teachers from Singpapore. Each study
involved comparisons being made. Students and teachers views were
examined for gender differences as were students mathematics achievements,
teachers and students beliefs were compared, comparisons were made between
the views of teachers from Singapore and Victoria, and teachers views on
computers and calculators were contrasted.
A synopsis of each study, with selected major findings, is presented below.
Study 1. A three-year study of computer use in Victorian grade 7-10
mathematics classes.
The overall aims of the three year study into computer use in Victorian grade 7-
10 classrooms included: (i) determining perceived effects of using computers on
students mathematics learning outcomes, (ii) identifying factors that may
contribute to inequities in learning outcomes (equity factors included: gender,
socio-economic background, language background, Aboriginality, and
geographic location) and (iii) monitoring how computers are being used for
mathematics learning. The research design for the three years involved:
Year 1: surveys of mathematics students in grades 7-10 (N=2140: F=1015,
M=1112, ?=13) and their teachers (N=96: F=52, M=44); survey of
grade 11 students (N=519: F=237, M=281, ?=1 ) reflecting on previous
use of computers for mathematics learning 29 co-educational schools
were involved.
Year 2: in-depth studies of 7 grade 10 mathematics classrooms at three schools
surveys, observations, interviews.
Year 3: repeat of Year 1 surveys in same schools only 24 schools participated
grades 7-10 students (N=1613: F=810, M=794, ?=9), their teachers
(N=75; F=41, M=34); and grade 11 students (N=376: F=166, M=210).
The findings from this study have been widely reported (e.g., Forgasz, in press
a, in press b, 2005, 2004a, 2004b, 2003, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c). A brief summary
of some of the main findings is presented below:
Computer ownership by mathematics teachers was high (>80%), teachers
considered themselves well-skilled with computers, and most had used
computers in their mathematics teaching ( 70%); <10% had not and were
not planning to do so. Computers were more widely used in single content
areas than fully integrated across the mathematics curriculum. Teachers
wanted more professional development to extend skills, increase
confidence levels, and become more familiar with software applications.
The most widely used mathematic-specific software applications were
Geometers sketchpad (22% of teachers) and Graphmatica (22%); the most
frequently used generic software applications were spreadsheets (62%),
word-processors (49%), and Internet browsers (32%). CD-ROMs
accompanying textbooks were also widely used (26%).
Teachers were generally supportive and confident about using computers in
their classrooms. They identified greater access to hardware, more
technical support, the availability of high quality software, and on-going
professional development as the significant issues to be addressed if they
are to use computers more in their mathematics teaching.
Teachers ( 60%) were not fully convinced that computers aided students
mathematical understandings; males, however, were more positive about
the effects than females. Students were even less convinced of this than
their teachers ( 30%); again, males were more positive than females.
Students attending schools in lower SES locations, government schools,
and at lower grade levels, were more convinced than their respective
counterparts that computers assisted their mathematical understandings.
Compared to their respective counterparts, students from non-English
speaking backgrounds, males, and those with high self-ratings of
mathematics achievement, had higher computer ownership and held more
positive attitudes towards computers for mathematics learning.
Some teachers believed there were differences in the ways boys and girls
work with computers. Compared to boys, girls were generally considered
less confident, less competent, and less interested in using computers.
Data from grade 11 students indicated that computers served as stronger
motivators for males than for females enjoyment of mathematics, and in
persisting with mathematics at higher levels of schooling and beyond.
Study 2. A comparative study of Victorian and Singaporean teachers
perceptions of computer and graphics calculator use.
The aim of this study, conducted in 2005, was to investigate and compare the
use of and perceptions towards computers and graphic calculators among
mathematics teachers at senior secondary levels in two settings: grades 11 and
12 in Victoria and junior college years 1 and 2 in Singapore the two final years
of schooling leading to tertiary entrance (Tan & Forgasz, n.d.; Tan, 2005).
Since 2002, only a small group of mathematically inclined students taking the
subject Further Mathematics at the senior secondary levels in Singapore have
been allowed to use graphics calculators in their examinations; the majority
studied the subject Mathematics and graphics calculator were not permitted in
the examinations. Graphics calculators will be introduced more widely into the
revised mathematics curriculum at the senior secondary level in 2006.
A survey questionnaire was administered to 35 (19M, 16F) mathematics
teachers from 14 independent (non-government, non-Catholic) schools in
Victoria, and 33 (16M, 16F, 1?) teachers from five junior colleges in Singapore.
It was found that graphics calculators were extensively used by the Victorian
teachers, and that high proportions of the Singaporean and Victorian teachers
had not or had hardly ever used computers with their mathematics classes.
Interestingly, Victorian teachers self-ratings of their graphics calculator skills
(beginner, average, or advanced) were much higher than the Singaporean
teachers; only one Victorian indicated being a beginner and 18 claimed to be
advanced, while 19 Singaporean teachers identified as beginners and only two to
having advanced skills. The difference in perceived competency resonated with
other findings that showed that a higher proportion of Victorian than
Singaporean teachers had personal access to graphics calculators and had used
them for a longer time. The Victorian teachers were found to be more strongly
in support of graphics calculator use over computers, while the Singaporean
teachers were more supportive of computer use over graphics calculators.
The teachers in both settings identified factors that affected their decisions to use
the technologies. The data suggested that mandating technology tool use in an
assessment program, as was the case in Victoria, plays an important part in
explaining the extent of their use by teachers, and may also account for the
Victorian teachers preference for graphics calculators over computers.
Study 3: Perceptions of the impact of graphics calculators among teachers
from Victorian Catholic schools
The aim of this study was to investigate teachers perceptions of the impact of
graphics calculators on their teaching practice, on student learning, and on the
mathematics curriculum in grades 10-12 in Victorian Catholic secondary
schools (Griffith, 2005).
A survey was conducted with 47 (25M, 22F) senior secondary mathematics
teachers from 16 Catholic schools (6 girls-only, 6 boys-only, and 4 co-
educational schools). It was found that the teachers had used graphics
calculators with all of the grade 10-12 classes they taught, and that all students
owned their own graphics calculators. The teachers indicated that students in
grades 10-12 were using the graphics calculators for in-class activities, problem-
solving tasks, computational tasks, during investigations, and to do tests and
School Assessed Coursework [SAC] tasks. In general, students were not using
graphics calculators to write programs, play games, or to do puzzles or quizzes.
Some differences were noted in the views of male and female teachers on issues
associated with graphics calculators use. While all believed that using graphics
calculators had enhanced their mathematics teaching and changed how they
taught, the female teachers felt more strongly than the male teachers that their
students were able to solve non-routine problems on the graphics calculator that
would otherwise be inaccessible using algebraic techniques, and that students
were able to engage with challenging problems; they believed less strongly that
students accepted answers given by the calculator and rarely checked for
reasonableness. The females also believed more strongly than the males that the
introduction of technology-free examinations (2006 change to the VCE
mathematics assessment program) was a positive development.
In summary, the teachers generally believed that graphics calculators have had a
positive impact on their teaching and on students learning outcomes, and that
the curriculum has been enriched. Female teachers tended to hold these views
more strongly than their male counterparts.
Study 4. CAS calculators: Gendered patterns of achievement in a high
stakes examination pilot program, and teachers expectations of
their imminent mandated use in such courses.
The focus of this two-part study was on the introduction of CAS calculators for
use in the high stakes grade 12 VCE mathematics examinations (Forgasz &
Griffith, n.d.). For some years, it has been mandatory for students to use
graphics calculators in some VCE mathematics examinations. Since 2002, a
pilot study has been conducted involving small groups of grade 12 students
using CAS calculators instead of graphics calculators in one of the three VCE
mathematics courses on offer, Mathematical Methods (the subject most widely
required as a pre-requisite for tertiary study). From 2006-2008 the CAS
calculator will be optional, that is, there will be two parallel Mathematical
Methods courses available for all students to study one in which graphics
calculators must be used, the other mandating CAS calculators. From 2008, only
CAS calculators will be allowed.
Part 1 of this study involved an exploration of male and female students results
in Mathematical Methods over three years, 2002-2004. Comparisons were made
between the achievements of the students in the CAS pilot study and those of the
vast majority of students who used graphics calculators. Male and female results
at the top two achievement levels awarded (A+ and A) in each of the three
assessment tasks (one school-based, two external examinations) comprising the
VCE Mathematical Methods subject for the year 2004 are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Mathematical Methods and Mathematical Methods (CAS) results at
top three achievement levels, by gender, 2004
Mathematical Methods Mathematical Methods (CAS)
2
Male Female M:F Male Female M:F
1
N % N % N % N %
Grade Task 1 (school-assessed)
A+ 1747 18 1261 15 1.20 42 17 20 13 1.31
A 2003 21 1939 24 0.88 57 23 28 19 1.21
Examination 1
A+ 1102 12 793 10 1.20 35 14 16 11 1.27
A 1306 14 1030 13 1.08 40 17 19 13 1.31
Examination 2
A+ 1013 11 593 7 1.57 33 14 12 8 1.75
A 1074 11 874 11 1.00 34 14 20 14 1.00
1
Within gender cohort percentages.
2
Male to female ratio (M:F) = Male % : Female %
3
Shaded ratios when M:F>1 ie. greater % males than females
4
Bolded M:F ratio higher M:F ratio for the two subjects
The data in Table 1 reveal that when within gender cohort percentages were
considered, higher proportions of males than females were awarded the A+
grade for all three tasks in Mathematical Methods (CAS) than in Mathematical
Methods with graphics calculators) for all three tasks; this was also true for 2 of
the 3 tasks at the A level of achievement (Task 1 & Examination 1). Overall, the
there was a wider gender gap favouring males in performance at the highest
achievement levels for Mathematical Methods (CAS) than for Mathematical
Methods with graphics calculators. Similar patterns were observed for the 2002
and 2003 results.
In Part 2 of the study, 38 teachers views of the likely impact of the wider use of
CAS calculators from 2006 and beyond were examined. None of these teachers
was involved in the Mathematical Methods (CAS) pilot study. In one section of a
survey questionnaire, teachers were asked to respond to the open-ended
question, From 2006 onwards students will be able to use CAS (Computer
Algebra Systems) calculators in VCE Mathematics examinations. Please
describe in your own words the impact you think CAS calculators will have on:
your teaching, student learning, and curriculum. Separate spaces were provided
for teachers to answer about teaching, student learning, and the curriculum.
In general, the teachers tended to respond positively about the introduction of
CAS calculators in each of the three categories that they were asked to comment
on: teaching (positive: 68%, negative: 32%), student learning (positive: 65%,
negative: 35%) and curriculum (positive: 70%, negative: 30%). None mentioned
any potentially differential impacts on male and females students.
General conclusions from the four studies
Overall, the results of the four studies indicated support among Victorian
teachers for the use of digital technologies in the secondary mathematics
classroom. The teachers considered themselves fairly well-skilled in using the
technologies, but called for more professional development to enhance their
skills and confidence. Not all teachers were convinced of the effectiveness of
computers on students mathematical understanding; students were even less
convinced than their teachers. Yet, the teachers use the technologies fairly
regularly, and have found that their teaching, students learning, and the
curriculum, have been affected particularly in using handheld technologies.
With respect to gender, the findings seem to support Hoyles (1998) contention
that more emphasis on computer use might negatively impact on girls. Other
equity factors (e.g., socio-economic, language background, and geographic
location) appeared to influence access to and attitudes towards computers. There
were indications that males may be advantaged over females in using the
sophisticated CAS calculators in high stakes examinations. Based on the
comparisons between Singaporean and Victorian teachers, another important
finding was that curricular expectations and requirements seem to influence
teachers beliefs about and use of particular digital technologies.
References
Forgasz, H. J. (in press a).Teachers, equity, and computers for secondary
mathematics learning. Journal for Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(5).
Forgasz, H. (in press b). Factors that encourage or inhibit computer use for
secondary mathematics teaching. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and
Science Teaching, 25(1), 77-93.
Forgasz, H. J. (2005). Why study grade 11 mathematics: What have computers
got to do with it? In M. Goos, C. Kanes, & R. Brown (Eds.), Mathematics
education and society. Proceedings of the 4th International Mathematics
Education and Society conference (pp. 166-175). Gold Coast, Qld: Centre for
Learning Research, Griffith University.
Forgasz, H. (2004a). Teachers and pre-service teachers gendered beliefs:
Students and computers. Paper presented at Thematic Afternoon A [Teachers of
mathematics: Recruitment and retention, professional development and
identity], ICME-10, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Forgasz, H. J. (2004b). Equity and computers for mathematics learning: Access
and attitudes. In M. J. Johnsen Hines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education [PME] (2-399 2-406). Bergen, Norway: Bergen
University College.
Forgasz, H. J. (2003). Equity, mathematics learning and computers: Who gets a
fair deal in Australian secondary schools? In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty
& J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 Joint Meeting of PME and
PMENA Vol.1, (pp.1-1391-143). Honolulu, HI: Center for Research and
Development Group, University of Hawaii. [Available on CD-ROM]
Forgasz, H. J. (2002a). Computers for learning mathematics: Gendered beliefs.
In A. D. Cockburn & E Narda (Eds.). Proceedings of the 26th Conference of
the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol.2
(pp.2-369 2-375). Norwich, UK: University of East Anglia. [July 12-26]
Forgasz, H. J. (2002b). Computers for learning mathematics: Equity factors. In
B. Barton, K. C. Irwin, M. Pfannkuch, & M. O. J. Thomas (Eds.),
Mathematics education in the South Pacific. Proceedings of the 25th annual
conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Inc.
(pp.260-267). Auckland: MERGA Inc.. [Auckland, NZ, July 7-10].
Forgasz, H. J. (2002c). Teachers and computers for secondary mathematics.
Education and Information Technologies, 7(2), 111-125.
Forgasz, H. J. & Griffith, S. (n.d.). CAS calculators: Gender issues and teachers
expectations. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Griffith, S. (2005). Graphing calculators in the mathematics classroom: teachers
perceptions. Unpublished Masters Dissertation, Monash University, Australia.
Hoyles, C. (1998). Panel discussion: Looking through the technology. Pre-
proceedings. ICMI Study Conference on the teaching and learning of mathematics
at university level (pp.39-40). Singapore: ICMI.
Tan, H. (2005). A comparative study of mathematics teachers perceptions about
computers and graphics calculators. Unpublished Masters Dissertation, Monash
University, Australia.
Tan, H., & Forgasz, H. J. (n.d.). Graphics calculators for mathematics learning in
Singapore and Victoria (Australia): Teachers views. Manuscript submitted to the
30th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education, Prague, July 15-21, 2005.
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority [VCAA]. (2002a). Curriculum and
Standards Framework II. Overview. Retrieved January 10, 2005 from:
http://csf.vcaa.vic.edu.au/ov/ov-o.htm
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority [VCAA]. (2002b). Curriculum and
Standards Framework II. Information and communication technology in the
Mathematics CSF. Retrieved January 10, 2005 from:
http://csf.vcaa.vic.edu.au/ma/koma-l.htm
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2005). Mathematics: Victorian
Certificate of Education study design. Melbourne: Victorian Curriculum and
Assessment Authority.
IT in Singapore Mathematics Education
Kho Tek Hong
Ministry of Education, Singapore
KHO_Tek_Hong@moe.gov.sg
Introduction
The Singapores second Masterplan for IT in Education (2002 2008), following the first
masterplan1, provides the overall direction on how schools can harness the possibilities
offered by IT for learning. For mathematics education, the emphasis is increasingly on
using IT to enable and support the teaching and learning. To achieve this would require
curriculum and pedagogical changes, the professional development of teachers, and a
paradigm shift in teaching and learning.
Integration of IT and Pedagogy

The Singapore school mathematics framework has 5 inter-related components, namely,
Concepts, Skills, Processes, Attitudes and Metacognition. (As shown)
Beliefs
Interest Monitoring of ones own thinking
Appreciation Self-regulation of learning
Confidence
Perseverance
Numerical calculation
Algebraic manipulation
Spatial visualisation Reasoning, communication and
Data analysis connections
Measurement Thinking skills and heuristics
Use of mathematical tools Application and modelling
Estimation
Numerical
Algebraic
Geometrical
Statistical
Probabilistic
Analytical
The framework was developed in 1990, and has been updated in 2000 and 2005.The new
emphases include Reasoning, communication and connections and Application and
modelling. IT can play an important role in supporting the development of these.
A Pedagogy-Driven Model
1
The first masterplan (1997 2002) has created an IT-enriched learning environment. All schools have an IT infrastructure
with a good range of learning resources. Teachers generally have acquired basic proficiency in IT knowledge and skills.
The development of IT-supported learning resources involves 3 aspects, namely,
pedagogy, technology and resources. A successful development would depend much on
an effective integration of IT and pedagogy. We would like to propose the following
pedagogy-driven model for the development of learning resources for mathematics:
Pedagogy
(Teaching and learning
approaches)
Development
Technology Learning Resources

(IT tools) (Online modules)
The model involves the development of IT tools to support certain pre-determined
pedagogical approaches. Students will use the IT tools to help them understand
mathematics concepts and processes. The tools, in turn, will allow students to construct
mathematics concepts and models, and to share and discuss their constructions, and the
system will provide feedback to facilitate the learning process. Thus students will be
actively engaged in an interactive and collaborative learning environment.
Conclusion
We are constantly improving the way we teach mathematics, paying greater attention to
the processes of learning mathematics. For example, the Concrete-Pictorial-Abstract
approach2, grounded in Bruners theory of constructivism3 and Vygotskys theory of zone
of proximal development4, has proven to work in our Primary Mathematics curriculum.
This approach is now extended to learning algebra, for the development of conceptual
understanding through carefully planned, developmentally- and age-appropriate
strategies. With IT support and enhancement, students will develop not only deep
understanding of algebra concepts and processes, but also the skills of reasoning and
communication, which are required by our school mathematics framework. The aim is to
prepare students to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
2
This approach was developed by MOE in the 1980s, and has become the basis of our mathematics education. It was
inspired by Bruners classical book: The Process of Education (1960) in which he presents three levels of representation of
knowledge: enactive, iconic and symbolic representations.
3
Bruner defines constructivist learning as an active process in which learners construct new ideas or concepts based upon
their current and past knowledge.
4
Vygotsky defines the zone of proximal development as the distance between the actual developmental level for independent
problem solving and the level of potential development with adult guidance or with more capable peers.

Proceedings Math Edu

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Proceedings Math Edu

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

A Implementation of curricula; issues of access and equity.

Forname Name EMAIL Number

Much has been written about technology in the mathematics classroom, in

School and Community Trust, 2003). The preservation or demise of small

advantage of the benefits and opportunities embedded in computer-based

Alexiou-Ray, J. A., Wilson, E., Wright, V., & Peirano, A. M. (2003).

Hoffman, L. (2003). Overview of public elementary and secondary schools

Yaunches. (2004). Distance learning, from theory to powerful reality

The most rapidly growing branch of mathematics is mathematics of computation.

Changes in mathematics and changes in civilisation

In the following 30 years many results of mathematical logic and theory of

The content of mathematics of computation on the secondary level

Mathematical concepts and their applications

Can computers help?

So, the background idea of visualisation in learning mathematics of computation is

Turtle microworlds as well as programmed Drawer were used in Russian schools

Through visualisation Logo helps students to understand better such important

The robot and structural programming

Let us go to the essence. A maze is a rectangle surrounded by walls. It can also

Investigating different kinds of restrictions we can obtain a big variety of problems

Lacking the creative power of Logo, as an instrument of doing something relevant

The builder and parallel programming

An IT extension: Controlling real moving objects

The Life Game

Pre-computer experiences in algorithmic thinking

Tarskis (Micro)World was designed by the mentioned team from Stanford

Let us mention also another product of Patric Suppes group at Stanford it is

A different example is given by the Informatica microworld, used in teaching

Not covered yet

The important interconnected tasks for the future work are:

In this paper a synopsis of previous research of equity issues in computer-based

Impact of digital technology on gender equity

Responding to diversity and disadvantage

Section 1: A brief history of the evolving integration of technologies

Section 2: Evolving roles of technology in mathematics education at Brock

In this discussion we describe the evolution of the use of technologies in Brocks

Mediator (teacher) Mediator (teacher)

Information Student Knowledge Student understanding

Mediator (student) Mediator (student)

Information Student Knowledge Student understanding

Section 3: MICA courses directions and the integration of technologies

Section 4: Technologies and the education of future mathematics teachers

Teacher Education in Ontario follows a consecutive model. This means that

Section 5: Reflections by a new faculty, Chantal Buteau

I am currently in my second year as faculty in the Department and Im coming from

Sonia Ursini & Ana Isabel Sacristn

In this paper we reflect, based on the Mexican experience of massive implementation

The Mexican experience

Two types of Vorstellungen

Summarizing, we distinguish two types of internalizing our experiences from

Reflecting the Role of Digital Technologies

In this paper I address questions related to the implementation of curricula. I

Long term learning with technology: A role for research

In spite of the focus on the use of technology in mathematics

Extensive surveys have been conducted of the dispersion of the

This presents an obvious equity issue as between countries, but also

The obvious disadvantage to those having limited access to the

Not only do those with inadequate Internet connectivity lack access to

The usefulness of computers in teaching has been well recognized, but

There is justifiable fear about the hegemony of American and

Interesting and relevant applications of mathematics and statistics,

The digital divide can be within a country as well as between

Distance learning applications of the Internet have great potential,

It should also be understood that distance learning need not be over